← Back to meetings

Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-11/5/2025 complete

2025-11-05 · Formal

Items: 52

City Council Formal Meeting

View on Agenda Online ↗


Synced: 2026-05-28 03:37 AZ

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - W.R. Marksman Club, Inc. - District 1

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Arthur Garcia

Location
4044 W. Black Canyon Boulevard
Council District: 1

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
February 24, 2026 - 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 150 attendees
February 25, 2026 - 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 200 attendees
February 26, 2026 - 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 200 attendees
February 27, 2026 - 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 300 attendees
February 28, 2026 - 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 400 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Kimchi Korean BBQ - District 1

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 358058.

Summary

Applicant
Jaong Woo, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4214 W. Dunlap Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 16, 2025.

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.




Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“My focus and responsibility to my guests, staff and neighborhood is to provide
amazing delicious food with the accompaniment of Korean (Asian) alcoholic beverages
to enhance the overall guest experience. We as an organization are very aware of the
health and safety of all involved relating to our space.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Our focus is on the food we serve at our restaurant, the alcohol that is served is only
provided to enhance the experience of enjoying the culture and cuisine offerred by our
restaurant.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Kimchi Korean BBQ - Data
Attachment B - Kimchi Korean BBQ - Map

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





Liquor License Data: KIMCHI KOREAN BBQ
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 0

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2

Restaurant 12 2 1


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 90.2 70.48

Violent Crimes 12.31 19.05 10.61

*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 40 157

Total Violations 69 262




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

0923084 2140 598 15 221

0923091 1107 330 8 7

1042061 1490 436 6 152

1042062 1136 203 29 327

1042063 1361 484 4 163

1057011 1484 317 33 85

1057012 2016 475 4 419

1057021 2689 600 18 316

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: KIMCHI KOREAN BBQ
4214 W DUNLAP AVE




Date: 9/19/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Doubles - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 354677.

Summary

Applicant
Camila Alarcon, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
16260 N. 71st Street
Zoning Classification: CP/GCP 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 location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.

The 60-day limit for processing this application was November 1, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.

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.

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's members have significant experience operating establishments with liquor
licenses in several locations across the United States. Applicant will operate this
restaurant in accordance with its high standards, ensuring compliance of Arizona liquor
laws and regulations, as well as proper training of managers and staff.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“A restaurant license at this location will provide the tenants and visitors of this office
complex an additional amenity as required by the public's convenience, and will serve
the best interest of the community.”

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
Attachment A - Doubles - Data
Attachment B - Doubles - Map

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





Liquor License Data: DOUBLES
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 0

Hotel 11 1 1

Restaurant 12 23 2


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 20.11 26.64

Violent Crimes 12.31 1.75 2.44
*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 40 15

Total Violations 69 17




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1032191 1914 552 701 109

1032192 1226 374 27 79

1032193 671 385 47 25

2168161 2299 576 378 112

2168452 2059 251 338 168

6152012 6102 515 722 1020

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: DOUBLES
16260 N 71ST ST




Date: 9/9/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Garden of Eden Grill - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 357431.

Summary

Applicant
Lovina Hermez, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2505 E. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

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 November 14, 2025.

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.




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 understand the responsibilities that come with serving alcohol. I am knowledgeable
in state liquor laws. I am comitted in keeping a safe, lawful enviroment and will operate
responsibly and reliably.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Garden of Eden Grill will provide a safe and healthy enviroment. The license will
benefit the restaurant, customers, and provide a controlled enviroment where alcohol
will be served responsibly.”

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
Attachment A - Garden of Eden Grill - Data
Attachment B - Garden of Eden Grill - Map

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





Liquor License Data: GARDEN OF EDEN GRILL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 2

Liquor Store 9 8 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 3

Restaurant 12 13 7


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 145.38 199.57

Violent Crimes 12.31 27.94 34.92

*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 40 42

Total Violations 69 72




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1033041 2061 216 78 671

1033051 1555 265 37 486

1033052 2177 371 29 554

1033061 1843 117 39 722

1036063 2120 707 33 63

6194001 1835 365 59 62

6195003 2528 759 86 475

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: GARDEN OF EDEN GRILL
2505 E BELL RD




Date: 9/18/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Whiskey & Wings - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 359202.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
34406 N. Black Mountain Parkway
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 9, 2025.

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.




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:
“We are dedicated to upholding all laws, including those pertaining to liquor service.
We have completed all liquor training courses, and our bartenders will all be
knowledgeable in Title IV laws.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location is an established local destination, and we are excited to offer them a
new dining option in an established location. We will offer a safe environment to
responsibly enjoy dinner with the option of alcoholic beverages.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Whiskey & Wings - Data
Attachment B - Whiskey & Wings - Map

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





Liquor License Data: WHISKEY & WINGS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 8 8

Bar 6 4 4

Liquor Store 9 4 4

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 4

Restaurant 12 12 12


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 3.42 8.81

Violent Crimes 12.31 0.37 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 40 1

Total Violations 68 1



Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

0304023 1823 793 222 59

6125002 1605 599 77 23

6125003 874 355 32 26

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: WHISKEY & WINGS
34406 N BLACK MOUNTAIN PKWY




Date: 10/16/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Bell Road Food Mart - District 3

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 360362.

Summary

Applicant
Michael Kaffer, Jr., Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
1602 E. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 18, 2025.

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.

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 worked for Arizona Alcohol Traffic & Firearms for 3 years helping people
acquire liquor licenses and become Title 4 certified to insure compliance with state and
local governmental laws & regulations regarding alcohol.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts, golf
courses, special events, convenience / liquor / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to
this proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Bell Road Food Mart - Data
Attachment B - Bell Road Food Mart - Map

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





Liquor License Data: BELL ROAD FOOD MART
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1

Liquor Store 9 2 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4

Restaurant 12 9 4


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 111.04 125.69

Violent Crimes 12.31 16.24 17.51

*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 40 44

Total Violations 68 85




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1036062 2171 617 8 51

1036063 2120 707 33 63

1036111 1291 377 39 156

6190002 1059 460 29 112

6192001 3238 52 86 1135

6192003 1173 323 123 61

6193001 1169 637 35 104

6194001 1835 365 59 62

6194002 1918 399 29 37

6194003 900 236 50 31

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: BELL ROAD FOOD MART
1602 E BELL RD




Date: 9/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - BBQ Chicken Phoenix - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 357030.

Summary

Applicant
Chung Kim, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
305 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a
Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 15, 2025.

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.

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 a clean record, financial stability, and a strong sense of responsibility. I
understand and will strictly follow all liquor laws, ensure staff are trained are trained in
responsible service, and maintain a safe environment for customers. My
professionalism and commitment to compliance make me fully prepared to manage
the duties that come with this license.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It will provide residents with a welcoming place to gather, enjoy food and drink
responsibly, and support a local business that contributes to the economy. The license
will allow us to better meet customer demand, create jobs, and strengthen community
connections while maintaining a safe and compliant environment.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Attachment A - BBQ Chicken Phoenix - Data
Attachment B - BBQ Chicken Phoenix - Map

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





Liquor License Data: BBQ Chicken Phoenix
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 9 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3

Liquor Store 9 6 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 5

Hotel 11 2 1

Restaurant 12 41 20

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 171.78 146.7

Violent Crimes 12.31 29.03 25.15
*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 40 37

Total Violations 68 59




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1105013 486 47 63 125

1105022 2166 436 185 339

1106004 1350 265 59 196

1117004 1426 315 66 49

1118001 962 221 108 264

1118003 1247 510 88 26

1118004 1423 507 117 200

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: BBQ CHICKEN PHOENIX
305 E THOMAS RD




Date: 9/24/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Brasserie Melrose - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 359197.

Summary

Applicant
Tory Johnson, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4971 N. 7th Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-3 TOD-1
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business has plans
to open in January 2026.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 11, 2025.

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.

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 completed the necessary training, have the experience to responsibly manage
a restaurant beverage program, and the passion to ensure that this project.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The neighborhood is hungry for additional places to dine & drink - the vibrant Melrose
District is always ready for a new face.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Brasserie Melrose - Data
Attachment B - Brasserie Melrose - Map

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





Liquor License Data: BRASSERIE MELROSE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 8 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 8 2

Liquor Store 9 2 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1

Restaurant 12 40 6


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 203.68 233.97

Violent Crimes 12.31 41.93 45.32
*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 40 73

Total Violations 68 133




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1074012 695 104 48 42

1074013 735 245 18 41

1075001 942 355 22 43

1075003 1528 403 81 98

1088021 949 208 91 139

1088022 361 81 17 7

1088023 893 68 77 10

1089012 785 141 30 113

1089023 1182 103 32 311

1089024 621 197 42 0

1171001 1768 158 74 235

1171002 1261 250 104 101

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: BRASSERIE MELROSE
4971 N 7TH AVE




Date: 10/17/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Crab 99 - District 5

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 357121.

Summary

Applicant
Guohui Chen, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
9796 W. McDowell Road, Ste. 170
Zoning Classification: PUD
Council District: 5

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 in December 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 11, 2025.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the



State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes information about any
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.

Number 1 Buffet & Number 1 Cajun Seafood (Series 12)
10125 W. McDowell Road, Avondale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Harbor Seafood Cajun House (Series 12)
930 W. Broadway Road, Unit 10, Tempe
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:
“I have been in restaurant management for 20 years and I have completed all liquor
training courses. I currently managing another restaurant in Avondale, Arizona with
liquor license #12 - Number 1 Buffet at 10125 W McDowell Rd, Avondale, AZ 85392
(AZ Liquor License Number 012070027351).”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Crab 99 is a great new seafood boiler restaurant that is family oriented and
budget friendly. It will be a great addition to the neighborhood.”

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
Attachment A - Crab 99 - Data


Attachment B - Crab 99 - Map

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





Liquor License Data: CRAB 99
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 4

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 4

Hotel 11 4 4

Restaurant 12 4 4


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 27.68 17.72

Violent Crimes 12.31 4.61 3.39

*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 40 11

Total Violations 68 17


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

0820172 0 0 0 0

0820173 3988 321 14 398

0820242 3240 398 110 469

0820271 2208 260 99 274

0830002 2263 325 59 979

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: CRAB 99
9796 W MCDOWELL RD




Date: 10/16/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Gertrude's - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 360382.

Summary

Applicant
Mark Tarbell, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1201 N. Galvin Parkway, Ste. 1511
Zoning Classification: R1-6
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 17, 2025.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations



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.

Tarbell's (Series 12)
3213 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 2
Liquor license violations: None

Tavern & Wine Store (Series 6)
3205 and 3209 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 2
Liquor license violations: None

Wine Store (Series 10/10S)
3209 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 0
Liquor license violations: None

Cultivate (Series 12)
3200 E. Camelback Road, Level 1, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 12
Liquor license violations: None

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have held several liquor licenses in Phoenix for over 30 years, without incident,
including: Tarbell's - #12071531 and #07070163, Tavern & Wine Store - #06070233,
Wine Store - #10076433, Wine Store Sampling - #105076433, Cultivate -
#012070031392.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My business present high-end environments with community and social value to


patrons of an affluent and educated demographic.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Gertrude's - Data
Attachment B - Gertrude's - Map

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





Liquor License Data: GERTRUDE'S
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Government 5 2 0

Bar 6 1 0



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 4.88 3.82

Violent Crimes 12.31 0.53 0.63

*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 40 0

Total Violations 68 0


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1112041 3619 174 105 376

2180003 1146 410 63 58

2181001 1196 270 84 170

2181002 1010 339 60 63

3185013 734 274 6 50

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: GERTRUDE'S
1201 N GALVIN PKWY




Date: 9/24/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Grab N Go EZ Stop Market - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 359454.

Summary

Applicant
Vaneet Sapra, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
1851 W. Northern Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with
an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 17, 2025.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the



applicant in the State of Arizona.

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 successfully owned and managed more then 10+ licenses over the past 10 yrs.
My proven track record demostrate my ability to comply with liquor laws, operate
responsibly and maintain well-managed establilishment.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It will provide a safe and well managed establishment, create new more jobs, support
the local economy and meet community demand in compliance with liquor laws.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Grab N Go EZ Stop Market - Data
Attachment B - Grab N Go EZ Stop Market - Map

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





Liquor License Data: GRAB N GO EZ STOP MARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 0

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 3

Restaurant 12 8 4

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 213.64 328.55

Violent Crimes 12.31 44.85 63.05

*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 40 71

Total Violations 68 140




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1054001 1246 488 20 0

1054003 1227 324 26 16

1055031 515 0 19 63

1055032 3678 260 205 969

1060021 1826 129 76 413

1060022 1038 145 43 199

1060031 1932 262 50 414

1061001 1093 414 14 0

1061002 1280 430 31 277

1061003 1024 20 140 169

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: GRAB N GO EZ STOP MARKET
1851 W NORTHERN AVE




Date: 9/29/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Sogno Toscano Cafe & Wine Bar - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 356855.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3950 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 11, 2025.

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.




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 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:
“With locations in New York City, Santa Monica and Los Angeles, Sogno Toscano is
opening its first location in Phoenix. Applicant will offer traditional Italian dishes, such
as schiacciate, pastas, pinsas, taglieri, soups, salads, desserts and pastries in a
Tuscan-style, family-friendly environment. Applicant would like to offer alcoholic
beverages to guests 21 and over as an incident to the delicious meals served at the
restaurant.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Sogno Toscano Cafe & Wine Bar - Data
Attachment B - Sogno Toscano Cafe & Wine Bar - Map

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





Liquor License Data: SOGNO TOSCANO CAFE & WINE
BAR
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Bar 6 5 5

Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4

Restaurant 12 38 26


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 90.04 106.36

Violent Crimes 12.31 9.42 9.02
*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 40 35

Total Violations 69 47




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1082001 1074 308 30 111

1082003 1237 375 35 61

1083013 1416 316 40 58

1083021 1269 360 68 58

1083022 1419 351 90 116

1109011 1092 393 51 29

1109021 2051 122 184 126

1109022 2584 472 149 528

1110001 1097 117 20 93

1110002 891 325 25 43

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: SOGNO TOSCANO CAFE & WINE BAR
3950 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD




Date: 9/19/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - The Chef's Warehouse - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 355207.

Summary

Applicant
Tyler Nielsen, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
3717 W. Washington Street
Zoning Classification: A-2
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. 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 November 18, 2025.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the



applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am a manager at The Chefs' Warehouse West Coast, LLC and have taken the
required Title 4 Management Liquor Law Training and the Title 4 Basic Liquor Law
Training classes.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. - District 8

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Nancy Lipman

Location
215 N. 7th Street
Council District: 8

Function
Holiday Party

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
December 13, 2025 - 7 p.m. to midnight / 350 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Classico Fine Wines and Spirits - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 360610.

Summary

Applicant
Dario Soldan, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
3908 E. Broadway Road, Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: CP/GCP
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
has plans to open in December 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 18, 2025.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
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.

Classico Distributor (Series 4)
2209 W. 1st Street, Ste. 111, Tempe



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:
“I have this liquor license #04073081 for the past 23 yrs and I'm expanding my
business to the same capacity and nature to a new location at 3908 E. Broadway Rd
#100 Phoenix AZ 85040.”

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.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - The Burger Bar - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 358372.

Summary

Applicant
Jared Repinski, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4750 S. 48th Street, Ste.107
Zoning Classification: C-2
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 November 14, 2025.

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.




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 been assisting Arizona liquor licensed establishments with their licensing needs
for almost 20 years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts, golf
courses, special events, convenience / liquor / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to
this proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - The Burger Bar - Data
Attachment B - The Burger Bar - Map

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





Liquor License Data: THE BURGER BAR
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 4 4

Beer and Wine Bar 7 8 8

Liquor Store 9 12 4

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 0

Restaurant 12 12 12



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 42.09 64.43

Violent Crimes 12.31 9.26 16.56

*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 40 27

Total Violations 68 34



Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1152002 1768 90 36 397

1162041 2033 444 17 581

1162042 1544 234 11 310

1162043 662 144 13 35

3197091 0 0 0 0

Average 1601 393 60 177



Liquor License Map: THE BURGER BAR
4750 S 48TH ST




Date: 10/16/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Grab N Go 909 - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 357099.

Summary

Applicant
Jaskaran Singh, Agent

License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store

Location
8802 S. Central Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a liquor store. This location is currently
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store, liquor license.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 17, 2025.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.




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 run several businesses for many years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It is important to serve and protect the community.”

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
Attachment A - Grab N Go 909 - Data
Attachment B - Grab N Go 909 - Map

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





Liquor License Data: GRAB N GO 909
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 0

Liquor Store 9 8 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 12 4

Restaurant 12 10 4


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 102.76 120.91

Violent Crimes 12.31 19.74 27.28
*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 40 44

Total Violations 68 62




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167031 2424 868 78 214

1167032 1869 434 27 77

1167321 1257 284 23 489

1167322 1859 526 14 427

1167341 1488 486 29 332

1167351 1566 364 15 265

1167352 1422 260 62 315

1167361 1231 107 15 473

1167362 2156 475 19 241

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: GRAB N GO 909
8802 S CENTRAL AVE




Date: 10/2/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of a Deed and Easements for Sidewalk, Roadway
and Landscape Purposes (Ordinance S-52380) - Districts 1 & 7

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements and a deed for
sidewalk, roadway and landscape purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Legal descriptions are recorded via separate recording instrument.

Summary
Accepting and dedicating the property interests below will meet the Planning and
Development Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to
releasing any permits to applicants.

Easement (a)
MCR: 20250539395
Applicant and Grantor: 43 Thunderbird, LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: September 18, 2025
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 4250 W. Thunderbird Road
APN: 207-12-001C
File: 250082
Council District: 1

Deed (b)
MCR: 20250537585
Applicant and Grantor: Laveen Baseline LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: September 17, 2025
Purpose: Roadway
Location: Southwest corner of S. 63rd Avenue and W. Baseline Road
APN: 300-02-925B
File: 250077
Council District: 7

Easement (c)
MCR: 20250547203
Applicant and Grantor: Adams Place Apartments LLC; its successor and assigns



Date: September 23, 2025
Purpose: Landscape
Location: 2121 W. Adams Street
APN: 109-32-135
File: 250085
Council District: 7

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Hazardous Material Meters, Parts, Services and Maintenance - EXC 21-120 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52385) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 154545 to modify the vendor name from Rigaku Analytical Devices, Inc. to
Rigaku Americas Holding, Inc. dba Rigaku Analytical Devices. 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-47642.

Summary
This contract provides the Fire Department with hazardous materials detection meters
used when responding to incidents involving chemical spills and gas releases.
Specialized hazardous materials detection meters are required to monitor the
atmospheric conditions and specific chemical hazards. The hazardous material meters
are a critical part of the Fire Department's ability to identify dangerous substances and
mitigate those hazards to protect the public and the firefighters.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on May 31, 2026.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $1,039,266, and no additional
funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Hazardous Material Meters, Parts, Services and Maintenance Contract 154545
(Ordinance S-47642) on June 1, 2021.
· Hazardous Material Meters, Parts, Services and Maintenance Contract 154545
(Ordinance S-52034) on June 1, 2025.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.






Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request for City Council to Call to Meet in Executive Session on Specific Dates
January through December 2026 - Citywide

Request for the City Council to call meetings for the purpose of holding an Executive
Session pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute Section 38-431.03.A, on the following
dates:

· January 20
· February 24
· March 24
· April 14
· May 12
· June 9
· June 30
· September 15
· October 6
· November 10
· December 15

Public Outreach
The time and location of each meeting will be posted in the official notice and agenda
no later than 24 hours prior to each scheduled meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
American Institutes for Research Opportunity Fund Consulting Agreement
(Ordinance S-52383) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences or affiliate (AIR) for
pro-bono consulting services. There is no financial impact to the City for this
agreement.

Summary
The American Institutes for Research Opportunity Fund’s “Priority Places” initiative
supports place-based investments in bold, community-led solutions that advance
opportunity and improve lives and has worked with over 100 grantees worldwide.
Through a philanthropic venture, Phoenix has been selected by AIR to receive, at no
cost to the City, consulting services to provide research, evaluation, and technical
assistance. The Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS) seeks research and technical
assistance support to evaluate and understand its outcomes and impacts and improve
its services. Through this partnership, AIR will contribute in-depth research capacity,
data analysis, and evidence-based approaches to strengthen OHS’s strategies and
programs. Priority projects identified by OHS include:

· Understanding the return on investment for Phoenix-funded homelessness
programs and true cost of experiencing homelessness in Phoenix.
· Evaluating supportive employment programs (costs and program impacts).
· Assessing the viability and potential for impact in incorporating shared housing and
master leasing into OHS’s broader strategy.

AIR is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization founded in 1946 and is one of the
world’s leading behavioral and social science research organizations. AIR has
decades of experience partnering with governments, nonprofits, and community
organizations at the local, state, and federal levels. Current and past collaborations
include work with cities and states on education finance, workforce training, housing
and homelessness, and public safety.

The partnership with the City will be supported through the AIR Opportunity Fund,



AIR’s philanthropic arm dedicated to building stronger, healthier, and more resilient
communities across the country. The AIR Opportunity Fund was established in 2021
with a 10-year, $225 million commitment to expand opportunity in education, workforce
development, community health, and neighborhood safety. By concentrating resources
in select “Priority Places,” including Phoenix, AIR collaborates with local leaders to co-
design solutions that respond.

Contract Term
The contract term will commence upon signing of the agreement for a term up to five
years.

Financial Impact
This agreement will not result in a financial impact to the City.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of
Homeless Solutions.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend the Emergency Shelter/Heat Related Respite Operator
and Supportive Services Qualified Vendor List (Ordinance S-52387) - Citywide

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into additional
contracts with responsive offerors to the Request for Qualifications (RFQu) for
Emergency Shelter/Heat Related Respite Operator and Supportive Services Qualified
Vendor List (QVL). Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse
funds for the QVL life.

Summary
The Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS) provides support and services for people
experiencing homelessness and is committed to ending homelessness through a
comprehensive, regional approach to housing and services. Contracts awarded from
the QVL include assistance with City-owned shelter and heat-respite projects,
contractor-owned emergency shelter and heat related respite programs, Community
Court, and other supportive services to individuals or families experiencing
homelessness.

Adding the additional providers will allow the City to continue providing shelter and
supportive services to assist individuals moving from unsheltered homelessness to
permanent housing. Due to the Citywide impacts of this item, staff is requesting
consent of the full Council under Section 2 of City Council Ordinance S-50419, which
requires additional Council approval for certain uses of the QVL.

Procurement Information
RFQu-22-HSD-61 was conducted in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Human Services Department (HSD) received a total of seven offers
on September 29, 2025 and all offers were determined to be responsive and
responsible to the solicitation requirements.

The Procurement Officer evaluated all offers for Pass/Fail criterion on the following
minimum qualifications:






Scope of Work 1: Emergency Shelter/Heat Related Respite Operator
At least three years experience operating an emergency shelter or heat related respite
facility.
At least three years experience in case conferencing clients to end their
homelessness.
Evidence that direct service staff are trained in CPR, First Aid, Crisis Prevention,
Trauma Informed Care, and Motivational Interviewing.

Scope of Work 2: Supportive Services
At least three years experience providing supportive services to people experiencing
homelessness.
Evidence of experience and participation in the local Continuum of Care.
Evidence of three years experience in the Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS).
Evidence that direct service staff are trained in CPR, First Aid, Crisis Prevention,
Trauma Informed Care, and Motivational Interviewing.

The following offerors met all solicitation criteria and are recommended to be
added to the QVL:

Emergency Shelter/Heat Related Respite Operator
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.
Justa Center, Inc.
Phoenix Gospel Mission, Inc. DBA Phoenix Rescue Mission

Supportive Services
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.
Justa Center, Inc.
Phoenix Gospel Mission, Inc. DBA Phoenix Rescue Mission
M Gunn Holdings, LLC DBA EMT Elite
Myndhack LLC

Contract Term
This QVL term will remain unchanged and be in effect from February 1, 2023 through
June 30, 2028.

Financial Impact
The aggregate cost of contracts approved under the QVL will not exceed $63,453,395
over the QVL life. Funding is available in the OHS' operating budget and via federal,
state, and county grant funding.



Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On January 25, 2023, the City Council approved the QVL with Ordinance S-49352.
· On June 28, 2023, the City Council approved an additional $13.3 million in funding
with Ordinance S-49924.
· On December 13, 2023, the City Council approved an additional $6,752,847 in
funding with Ordinance S-50419.
· On March 20, 2024, the City Council approved an additional $1,388,933 in funding
with Ordinance S-50706.
· On May 15, 2024, the City Council approved an additional $10.5 million in funding
with Ordinance S-50884.
· On January 15, 2025, the City Council approved an additional $15 million in funding
with Ordinance S-51541.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of
Homeless Solutions.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
2026-27 Housing and Urban Development Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan
Process - Citywide

This report requests City Council approval of the 2026-27 Consolidated Plan Annual
Action Plan process. This is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
requirement of receiving federal program funds.

Summary
The 2026-27 Annual Action Plan examines housing and community development
needs in the City of Phoenix and defines strategies for addressing those needs
throughout the year. The Annual Action Plan contains the planning and application
requirements for four major U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) programs that provide critical funds to entitlement cities like Phoenix every year.
The four fund sources are: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Through adoption of the 2025-29
Consolidated Plan in May 2025, the City Council approved the general priorities and
plans for these programs. Each year the Annual Action Plan details how federal funds
will be spent during the coming year.

The Annual Action Plan process will begin in November 2025. The initial public
communication and participation process will include the distribution of a community
survey, social media posts and outreach, and a HUD-required public in-person
hearing, all to assess community needs throughout Phoenix. Residents and
neighborhood leaders will be invited to provide testimony regarding housing,
homelessness, social services, and community development issues and concerns.
Residents who are unable to attend the in-person public hearing will have the
opportunity to submit their comments via email or voicemail. This information, along
with a needs assessment, will form the foundation of the draft 2026-27 Annual Action
Plan. The draft plan will be available for an advertised 30-day public comment period
and another public hearing will be held in spring 2026 before it is reviewed and
approved by the City Council. The goal of the Annual Action Plan process, per HUD
requirements, is to ensure comprehensive community planning and coordinated
service delivery are utilized to meet critical housing and community development
needs. The City Council will be asked to review and approve the draft 2026-27 Annual



Action Plan in early May 2026 before it is due to HUD by May 15, 2026.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Community Services and Education Subcommittee recommended approval of this
item on October 22, 2025, by a 3-0 vote.

Public Outreach
The City of Phoenix's Annual Action Plan process will include holding two HUD
required virtual public hearings with the notice of public hearings posted two weeks in
advance.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Gina Montes,
the Neighborhood Services and Housing departments and the Office of Homeless
Solutions.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorize Additional Funding for the Septic Tank Pumping Services -
Requirements Contract (Ordinance S-52389) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to add additional funding to
Septic Tank Pumping Services Contract 155562, with AAA AJAX Pumping Services,
Inc for the Parks and Recreation Department. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value will
not exceed $280,000.

Summary
The City owns and operates several facilities that require the pumping of liquid and
solid materials from septic tanks and vault toilets. The septic/vault systems still in use
are generally older facilities with aging infrastructure or facilities without access to the
public sewer and water system. This contract will provide the needed pumping service,
including clean-up of work areas at the conclusion of pumping services and all labor,
equipment, materials and supplies, at various City locations.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on November 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $80,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate contract value will
not exceed $280,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation Department’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Septic Tank Pumping Services Contract 155562 (Ordinance S-48032) on October 27,
2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.






Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution to Approve the 2026 Downtown Enhanced
Municipal Services District Assessments (Resolution 22338) - Districts 7 & 8

Request to hold a public hearing for the approval of the 2026 Downtown Enhanced
Municipal Services District (Downtown EMSD) assessments and adopt a resolution
approving such assessments for the 2026 calendar year. The General Fund estimated
annual expenditure for this program is $452,017.

Summary
Pursuant to Arizona state law, a public hearing must be held prior to the annual
adoption of the assessments for the Downtown EMSD. The City Council authorized
the formation of the Downtown EMSD in 1990 to provide enhanced public services,
above and beyond the level of services provided in the remainder of the City. The
costs for the Downtown EMSD services are paid through assessments on property
owners within the Downtown EMSD boundaries, which are generally Garfield Street on
the north, 7th Street on the east, 3rd Avenue on the west, and the railroad tracks south
of Jackson Street on the south.

The City contracts directly with Downtown Phoenix, Inc. (DPI) to implement the work
program, as described in Attachment A. The work plan and budget for calendar year
(CY) 2026 provides a variety of enhanced services in the downtown core, including
business improvement services and overall business development.

The annual assessments for the Downtown EMSD will be levied for CY 2026 after the
required legal process for the Downtown EMSD has been completed. Assessments
are determined in proportion to the benefits received by each parcel. There are
approximately 742 parcels in the Downtown EMSD on which the budget will be
assessed. This is based on the approved Downtown EMSD assessment diagram that
indicates the properties to be assessed for enhanced municipal services. This diagram
is on file with the Office of the Director of the City of Phoenix Street Transportation
Department and was posted online at the City's Community and Economic
Development Department website.

The figures below represent the assessments for private and public property owners
based on the approved 2026 Downtown EMSD budget of $5,240,953. See



Attachment B for a breakdown of the expense categories. This includes $172,645 for
streetscape maintenance expenses, which are paid only by property owners and
tenants adjacent to the Streetscape Improvement District (SID). The SID includes
certain portions of Monroe Street from 3rd Avenue to 7th Street; Adams Street from
2nd Avenue to 2nd Street; 2nd Street from Jefferson to Van Buren streets; and 3rd
Street from Monroe to Van Buren streets.

Estimated 2026 District Budget: $5,240,953
Estimated 2026 Assessment Revenue: $4,990,953
Estimated 2026 Non-assessment Revenue: $250,000

Downtown EMSD CY 2026 Assessments
Private Property Owners Assessments: $2,165,333
Public Property Assessments: $2,825,620
Total Assessments: $4,990,953

Streetscape Maintenance Expenses (expenses included in the figures above)
Private Property Owners Assessments: $103,799.15
Public Property Assessments: $68,845.85
Total Streetscape Expenses: $172,645

Financial Impact
The City's total estimated annual expenditure for this program is $1,343,610, which
includes:
· $452,017 from the General Fund (approximate $8,628 increase from 2025);
· $665,747 from the Phoenix Convention Center;
· $159,804 from the Sports Facilities Fund; and
· $66,042 from the Phoenix Bioscience Core.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Economic Development and the Arts
Subcommittee meeting on September 10, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.

On October 15, 2025, the City Council approved:
· The 2026 Downtown EMSD Budget, Assessments and Set Public Hearing Date of
November 5, 2025, for the hearing on the estimated assessments; and
· The 2026 Downtown EMSD Assessment Diagram.

Public Outreach
On October 15, 2025, the City Council set the date of November 5, 2025, as the date



for the public hearing on the Downtown EMSD assessments. On October 15, 2025, a
total of 20 days prior to the hearing as legally required, all property owners were
notified by mail of their annual assessment cost by the Street Transportation and
Community and Economic Development departments. In addition, DPI has sent letters
to all property owners, and the Downtown EMSD Board approved the 2026 budget at
its June 2025 board meeting.

To answer any questions that property owners in the Downtown EMSD might have,
Community and Economic Development Department staff made themselves available
virtually for an hour prior to the November 5, 2025, public hearing. Notice of the public
hearing was also published in the Record Reporter as specified below. No further
notification is required after the public hearing.

To be published:
The Record Reporter
· October 22, 2025
· October 24, 2025

Location
The Downtown EMSD is generally bounded by Garfield Street on the north, 7th Street
on the east, 3rd Avenue on the west, and on the south by the railroad tracks south of
Jackson Street
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager John
Chan and the Street Transportation and Community and Economic Development
departments.





Attachment A




a.




a.


b.


c.


d.




Attachment B
CY 2026 EMSD Budget - Estimated


Account 2026 Budget
EMSD General Office 709,560
EMSD Admin Salaries 200,982
EMSD Events 433,358
EMSD Marketing 467,460
EMSD Bus Dev 219,998
EMSD BID/Field Services 2,831,950
EMSD SID 172,645
Total District Expenses 4,990,953
Miscellaneous non-district expenses 250,000
Total Budgeted Expenses 5,240,953
Assessment Revenue 4,990,953
Non-assessment Revenue 250,000
Total Revenues 5,240,953







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Pay Invoices for 2026 Downtown Enhanced Municipal Services District
(Ordinance S-52382) - Districts 7 & 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to pay all invoices received
from Downtown Phoenix, Inc. (DPI) through the Phoenix Downtown Enhanced
Municipal Services District (EMSD) Agreement, in an amount not to exceed
$4,990,953 for work related to the calendar year 2026 Downtown EMSD budget and
work plan through December 31, 2026. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer
to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The City Council authorized formation of the Downtown EMSD in 1990 to provide
enhanced public services, above and beyond the level of services provided in the
remainder of the City. The City contracts directly with DPI to implement the work
program of the Downtown EMSD, including the Ambassadors program, streetscape
improvements and maintenance, the Clean Team program, marketing, event
promotion, business assistance, and transportation services. Pursuant to State law,
the Downtown EMSD's budget must be approved each year. This action is the final
step in the annual budget process to authorize the Community and Economic
Development Department to pay DPI for services rendered in calendar year 2026
under the Downtown EMSD contract.

Financial Impact
The City's total estimated annual expenditure for this program is $2,825,620, which
includes:
· $452,017 from the General Fund (approximate $8,628 increase from 2025);
· $665,747 from the Phoenix Convention Center;
· $159,804 from the Sports Facilities Fund;
· $66,042 from the Phoenix Bioscience Core;
· $1,192,869 as a pass-through from other government-owned properties including
Maricopa County, Maricopa County Stadium District and the State of Arizona; and
· $289,141 collected as a pass-through from tenants on City-owned properties.

The remaining $2,165,333 of funds are collected from private property owners through



an assessment on their property tax bills.

Estimated 2025 District Budget: $5,240,953
Estimated 2025 Assessment Revenue: $4,990,953
Estimated 2025 Non-assessment Revenue: $250,000

In preparation for remitting the first payment by January 1, 2026, the Community and
Economic Development Department request the advance term as December 1, 2025,
to December 31, 2026, to prepare for implementation. Funding is available in the
Community and Economic Development Department's Operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Economic Development and the Arts
Subcommittee meeting on September 10, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.

On October 15, 2025, the City Council approved:
· The 2026 Downtown EMSD Budget, Assessments and Set Public Hearing Date of
November 5, 2025 for the hearing on the estimated assessments; and
· The 2026 Downtown EMSD Assessment Diagram.

Public Outreach
On October 15, 2025, the City Council set the date of November 5, 2025, as the date
for the public hearing on the Downtown EMSD assessments. On October 15, 2025, a
total of 21 days prior to the hearing as legally required, all property owners were
notified by mail of their annual assessment cost by the Street Transportation and
Community and Economic Development departments. In addition, DPI sent letters to
all property owners, and the Downtown EMSD Board approved the 2026 budget at its
June 2025 board meeting.

To answer any questions that property owners in the Downtown EMSD might have,
Community and Economic Development Department staff made themselves available
virtually for an hour prior to the November 5, 2025, public hearing. Notice of the public
hearing was also published in the Record Reporter on October 22, 2025 and October
24, 2025. No further notification is required after the public hearing.

Location
The Downtown EMSD is generally bounded by Garfield Street on the north, 7th Street
on the east, 3rd Avenue on the west, and on the south by the railroad tracks south of
Jackson Street
Council Districts: 7 and 8




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager John
Chan and the Street Transportation and Community and Economic Development
departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Construction/Permanent Notes (The
Moreland I Project), Series 2025 (Resolution 22343) - District 8

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue
Construction/Permanent Notes (The Moreland I Project), Series 2025, to be issued in
one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series, in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $50,000,000.

Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of the
proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue up to $50,000,000 of
Multifamily Housing Revenue Construction/Permanent Notes (the “Notes”), for use by
ML I Housing, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (the “Borrower”), to finance
and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the cost of:
a. The acquisition, construction, development, improvement, equipping and/or
operation of the first phase of a multifamily residential rental housing community
expected to be referred to as “The Moreland I” to be comprised of approximately
132 units (all or a portion of which will be set aside for occupancy by low- to
moderate-income tenants), an adjacent parking structure, and improvements and
facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto, to be situated on
approximately 1.60 acres of land leased by the City of Phoenix to the Borrower
(collectively, the “Facility”), which is being co-developed by Brinshore Development,
L.L.C. and the City of Phoenix (or their respective affiliates);
b. Funding any required reserve funds;
c. Paying capitalized interest on the Notes, if any; and
d. Paying costs and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of such Notes
(collectively, the “Project”).

The issuance of the Notes and the plan of financing for the Project, for purposes of
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Multifamily Housing
Revenue Construction/Permanent Notes at its meeting held on October 16, 2025.




Location
The Facility is located at or near 325 E. Moreland Street, in Phoenix, Arizona
(previously expected to be located at 1125 N. 3rd Street, in Phoenix, Arizona).
Council District: 8

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.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer.





ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT THE OFFICIAL COPY OF
THE FINAL, ADOPTED RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION _____

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN OF FINANCING
AND ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $50,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT AND/OR TAXABLE SERIES OF MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE CONSTRUCTION/PERMANENT NOTES (THE MORELAND I
PROJECT), SERIES 2025 OF THE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA




T
_______________

WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,

Arizona (the “Authority”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of




AF
the State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,

Arizona (the “City”); and

WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section

35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Authority to issue revenue bonds

for the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans

to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or operation




R
of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the Authority (the

“Authority Board”) finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Authority or the

public interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance

the costs of a “project” when the Authority Board finds that the refinancing is in the public




D
interest; and

WHEREAS, ML I Housing, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (the

“Borrower”), has requested that the Authority issue its revenue notes for the purpose of

assisting the Borrower to finance and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the

cost of: (a) the acquisition, construction, development, improvement, equipping and/or



4905-4666-0204.3
operation of the first phase of a multifamily residential rental housing community expected

to be referred to as “The Moreland I” to be comprised of approximately 132 units (all or a

portion of which will be set aside for occupancy by low- to moderate-income tenants), an

adjacent parking structure, and improvements and facilities functionally related and

subordinate thereto, to be situated on approximately 1.60 acres of land leased by the City

to the Borrower and located at or near 325 E. Moreland Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004



T
(previously expected to be located at 1125 N. 3rd Street, Phoenix, Arizona), which is

being co-developed by Brinshore Development, L.L.C. and the City (or their respective

affiliates), (b) funding any required reserve funds, (c) paying capitalized interest on the




AF
below-defined Notes, if any, and (d) paying costs and expenses incurred in connection

with the issuance of such Notes (collectively, the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Authority, by Resolution No. 2025-20, duly adopted by the

Authority Board at a meeting duly called and held on October 16, 2025, granted final

approval of the issuance and sale of its Multifamily

Construction/Permanent Notes (The Moreland I Project), in one or more tax-exempt
Housing Revenue




R
and/or taxable series (the “Notes”), from time to time pursuant to a plan of financing, in

an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000, the proceeds of which will be

used to finance the Project; and

WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of




D
the Authority under which the Notes are to be issued require the approval of the Council

of the City; and

WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

amended (the “Code”), requires that an “applicable elected representative” (as that term



2 Resolution No. ______
4905-4666-0204.3

is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the tax-exempt portion of the Notes and

the plan of financing for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing was

held by the Authority on October 10, 2025; and

WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the

proceeds of the Notes has been presented to the Council of the City; and

WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by



T
the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable

elected representative” as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Notes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY




AF
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:

SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Authority under which the Notes are

to be issued are hereby approved.

SECTION 2. The issuance of the Notes and the plan of financing for the

Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.

SECTION 3. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby




R
given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the

extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.



[Signature page follows]




D 3 Resolution No. ______
4905-4666-0204.3

PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this

5th day of November, 2025.




MAYOR


ATTEST:


City Clerk T
AF
APPROVED AS TO FORM:




REVIEWED BY:
Acting City Attorney




City Manager




R
D 4 Resolution No. ______
4905-4666-0204.3



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Notes (Helen Drake Village Project),
Series 2025 (Resolution 22344) - District 5

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue
Notes (Helen Drake Village Project), Series 2025, to be issued in one or more tax-
exempt and/or taxable series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$20,000,000.

Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of the
proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue up to $20,000,000 of
Multifamily Housing Revenue Notes (the “Notes”) for use by Richman Helen Drake
Village, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Borrower”), to finance and/or
refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the cost of:
a. The acquisition, construction, development, improvement, equipping, and/or
operating of a multifamily residential rental housing community to be known as
“Helen Drake Village” (including improvements and facilities functionally related and
subordinate thereto) expected to be comprised of approximately 80 units (all or a
portion of which will be set aside for occupancy by low- to moderate-income senior
tenants) to be situated on approximately two acres of land leased to the Borrower
by the City of Phoenix, (collectively, the “Facility”);
b. Funding any required reserve funds;
c. Paying capitalized interest on the Notes, if any; and
d. Paying costs and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of such Notes
(collectively, the “Project”).

The issuance of the Notes and the plan of financing for the Project, for purposes of
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Revenue Notes at its
meeting held on October 16, 2025.





Location
The Facility is generally located at or near 7606 N. 27th Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona.
Council District: 5

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.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer.





ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT THE OFFICAL COPY OF
THE FINAL, ADOPTED RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION _____

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN OF FINANCING AND
ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ONE
OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT AND/OR TAXABLE SERIES OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE NOTES (HELEN DRAKE VILLAGE PROJECT), SERIES 2025 OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA

_______________



T
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,

Arizona (the “Authority”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of

the State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,




AF
Arizona (the “City”); and

WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section

35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Authority to issue revenue bonds

for the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans

to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or operation

of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the Authority (the




R
“Authority Board”) finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Authority or the

public interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance

the costs of a “project” when the Authority Board finds that the refinancing is in the public

interest; and




D WHEREAS, Richman Helen Drake Village, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company (the “Borrower”), has requested that the Authority issue its revenue notes for

the purpose of assisting the Borrower to finance and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a

portion of the cost of: (a) the acquisition, construction, development, improvement,




4899-2314-7371.2
equipping and/or operating of a multifamily residential rental housing community to be

known as “Helen Drake Village” (including improvements and facilities functionally

related and subordinate thereto) expected to be comprised of approximately 80 units (all

or a portion of which will be set aside for occupancy by low- to moderate-income senior

tenants) to be situated on approximately 2 acres of land leased to the Borrower by the

City and generally located at or near 7606 N 27th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85051, (b)



T
funding any required reserve funds, (c) paying capitalized interest on the below-defined

Notes, if any, and (d) paying costs and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance

of such Notes (collectively, the “Project”); and




AF WHEREAS, the Authority, by Resolution No. 2025-18, duly adopted by the

Authority Board at a meeting duly called and held on October 16, 2025, granted final

approval of the issuance and sale of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Notes (Helen Drake

Village Project), in one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series (the “Notes”), from time

to time pursuant to a plan of financing, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed

$20,000,000, the proceeds of which will be used to finance the Project; and




R WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of

the Authority under which the Notes are to be issued require the approval of the Council

of the City; and

WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as




D
amended (the “Code”), requires that an “applicable elected representative” (as that term

is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the tax-exempt portion of the Notes and

the plan of financing for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing was

held by the Authority on October 10, 2025; and



2 Resolution No. ______
4899-2314-7371.2

WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the

proceeds of the Notes has been presented to the Council of the City; and

WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by

the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable

elected representative” as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Notes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:

T
SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Authority under which the Notes are

to be issued are hereby approved.




AF SECTION 2. The issuance of the Notes and the plan of financing for the

Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.

SECTION 3. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby

given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the

extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.




R [Signature page follows]




D 3 Resolution No. ______
4899-2314-7371.2
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this

5th day of November, 2025.




MAYOR


ATTEST:


City Clerk T
AF
APPROVED AS TO FORM:




REVIEWED BY:
Acting City Attorney




City Manager




R
D 4 Resolution No. ______
4899-2314-7371.2



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Fire Department Computer-Aided Dispatch Transition Consultant Contract
(Ordinance S-52386) - Citywide

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
Ronald C. Burch to provide computer-aided dispatch (CAD) transition consulting.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $630,000.

Summary
The Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) requires technical administration services for its
existing regional CAD system during the implementation of the new regional CAD
system. The dispatch system is used to deploy appropriate Fire personnel, apparatus,
and equipment to emergency calls from the public.

The CAD Modernization Project is an ongoing effort to upgrade the current legacy
CAD system. A substantial portion of PFD Technical Services staff are needed for the
ongoing CAD Modernization Project. However, the mission critical nature of the CAD
system requires that there be no reduction in the level of support it receives during the
project implementation.

The extended implementation timeline of the CAD Modernization Project requires that
PFD have a CAD transition consultant to provide services through the end of the
current CAD system’s live operations.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition due to the nature of the CAD operation
system (OpenVMS), programming languages used by CAD (COBOL and MACRO),
PFD has few other options available for temporary external resources to support the
legacy CAD system.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about October 29, 2025, for a three-year term.




Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $630,000 for the three-year aggregate
term. Funding is available in the Phoenix Fire Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
One-Time Purchase of Ground Support Equipment for Remote Hardstand at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (Ordinance S-52378) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, for a one-time purchase of
TLD brand ground support equipment (GSE) from Aero Specialties, Inc. for the new
remote hardstand located at Terminal 3 at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(PHX). Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The total purchase value will be up to $700,000.

Summary
The Aviation Department requests approval for a one-time purchase of GSE, which
consists of two air conditioning units, one ground power unit, and two water carts.
These GSE are necessary to support the remote hardstand to aircraft during
passenger boarding, deboarding, and moving passengers safely and quickly between
the aircraft and terminal buildings. The purchased GSE will accommodate various
aircraft sizes that currently serve PHX.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances without Competition, due to the time constraints associated
with long lead times for new equipment and the upcoming completion of the remote
hardstand.

Contract Term
The item will be for the one-time purchase of GSE, upon City Council's approval, on
November 5, 2025.

Financial Impact
The total purchase value of this one-time purchase will be up to $700,000, including
taxes, shipping, and all associated fees. Funding is available in the Aviation
Department's Capital Improvement Program budget.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road



Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Aviation
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Overhead, Aircraft Hangar, and Automatic Doors/System Replacement and
Repair Services - IFB 23-0129 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52379) - Districts 1, 8 &
Out of City

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow
additional expenditures under Contract 159166 (Contract) with D.H. Pace Company,
Inc. for various mechanical door repair and replacement services for the Aviation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will be $1.5 million.

Summary
The Contract provides maintenance and repair services for aircraft hangar doors,
overhead doors, dock leveling devices, and automatic doors throughout Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, and Phoenix Goodyear
Airport (Airports). These services are critical to ensure the proper operation, safety,
and security of Airport facilities for the traveling public. Due to significant demand to
replace aging doors and doors with potential security risks, the Aviation Department
relies on the Contract to ensure the Airports' continued operations without disruption.

Contract Term
The Contract term remains unchanged and will expire on September 30, 2028.

Financial Impact
Additional funds in the amount of $1.5 million will increase the cost of the Contract to
$3 million. Funds are available in the Aviation Department’s Operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Overhead, Aircraft Hangar, and Automatic Doors/System Replacement and Repair
Services, Contract 159166 (Ordinance S-50140) on September 6, 2023.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road;
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, 702 W. Deer Valley Road; and
Phoenix Goodyear Airport, 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, AZ.



Council Districts: 1, 8 and Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Aviation
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
New Access Agreement with Saab Inc. at Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (Ordinance
S-52384) - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an access
agreement with Saab Inc. (Saab) for access to Aviation properties at Phoenix Deer
Valley Airport (DVT) to install and maintain airfield sensors on existing utility poles at
DVT, which will communicate with controllers in the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) control tower.

Summary
Saab is collaborating with the FAA to install airfield sensors at DVT as part of the FAA
Surface Awareness Initiative (SAI). SAI is designed to improve airfield safety by
providing air traffic controllers increased situational awareness of aircraft activities on
the ground thereby reducing the potential for runway incursions. The sensors track
aircraft on the ground that are equipped with a component that broadcasts the
aircraft's position to receiving equipment in the FAA control tower. The installation of
the airfield sensors will have a minimal physical footprint.

Contract Term
The term of the access agreement is month-to-month and will expire on the date that
the City determines.

Financial Impact
There are no rents due under the access agreement. All installation activities will be
conducted by Saab at its sole expense.

Location
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport: 702 W. Deer Valley Road
Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Aviation
Department.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amended and Restated Lease 33676 with Cutter Aviation, Inc. at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport (Ordinance S-52388) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Lease 33676
(Ground Lease) with Cutter Aviation Phoenix, Inc. (Cutter) for the operation of a full-
service fixed base operator facility (FBO) at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(PHX) to extend the term 15 years and incorporate Lease 157996 (Parking Lot Lease)
into the Ground Lease.

Summary
Cutter leases approximately 18 acres of land under the Ground Lease for the
operation of an FBO at PHX. Cutter also leases approximately 1.06 acres of land at
PHX under the Parking Lot Lease for parking needs to support of its FBO operations.
Both leases will expire on March 31, 2028.

Cutter is seeking to invest a minimum of $7 million in FBO facility improvements,
including refurbishment of aircraft storage hangars, increase hangar aircraft size
capacity to accommodate larger general aviation aircraft, installation of a portico,
asphalt of aircraft ramp areas, and other efficiency and customer service
enhancements. In order for Cutter to amortize these investments, the Aviation
Department desires to amend and restate the Ground Lease to include extending the
term by 15 years, updating other lease provisions to modernize the Ground Lease to
align with current leasing standards, and incorporating the Parking Lot Lease into a
consolidated amended and restated Ground Lease. The amended and restated
Ground Lease will require all improvement to be completed within the first 36 months
of the extended term. To ensure the construction of the improvements is completed
within 36 months, Cutter must provide a cash deposit in the amount of $350,000 to the
City as a capital investment milestone guarantee. Failure to substantially complete the
improvements within the 36-month time period will result in forfeiture of the deposit to
the City.

Contract Term
The terms of the Ground Lease and Parking Lot Lease will expire on March 31, 2028.
The amended and restated Ground Lease will extend the term by 15 years from April
1, 2028, to March 31, 2043. If the leased premises are required for airport operational



purposes, the City may terminate the amended and restated Ground Lease by giving
Cutter a minimum of 12 month's prior written notice.

Financial Impact
Cutter currently pays approximately $336,808 in rent in the form of a minimum annual
guarantee (MAG) for its FBO leased premises and also pays additional amounts for
other aeronautical services in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-
approved PHX FBO Minimum Standards, such as fuel flowage fees and landing fees
performed at PHX. Combined revenue from Cutter for FBO and other aeronautical
services generates approximately $1.2 million per year. As a provision of the amended
and restated Ground Lease, rent for the FBO leased premises will convert to a ground
rental rate of approximately $0.43 per square foot per year, which will produce a rent
amount that approximately equals the current MAG amount. The annual ground rental
rate will remain at approximately $336,808 for years one through five of the extended
term. In years six through 10 of the extended term, the ground rental rate will increase
by $0.10 per square foot per year.

An appraisal will determine the market rental rate for year 11 of the extended term. If
the appraisal increase is 10 percent or less, then the ground rent will be adjusted to
the appraised market rate for year 11. If the appraisal market rate increase exceeds 10
percent, the ground rental rate increase for year 11 will be capped at 10 percent, with
subsequent 10 percent annual rent increases in years 12 through 15 until the ground
rental rate matches the appraised market rate. Once the appraised market rate is
reached, the rent adjustments for the remaining lease years will be based on the
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Consumer Price Index (CPI) or three percent, whichever is
greater.

Cutter currently pays $48,510 in ground rent under the Parking Lot Lease with annual
rent adjustments of three percent. The rental rate for the Parking Lot premises during
the extended term years will also be based on the appraised market rental rate and will
follow the same rental adjustment methodology as the FBO leased premises.

In addition to annual ground rent, Cutter will be subject to all fees and services
associated with the current FAA-approved PHX FBO Minimum Standards, including
fuel flowage fees and landing fees. The total anticipated revenue over the 15-year
extended term is expected to exceed $22 million.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval of this item on
September 18, 2025, by a vote of 9-0.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee recommended


approval of this item on October 15, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2802 E. Old Tower Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Aviation
Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Holiday Light Decorations - RFA 23-FMD-018 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52381) -
Districts 4, 7 & 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 156425 with Saguaro Summit LLC dba Christmas Light
Decorators. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $150,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for the annual holiday decorations
displayed along Central Avenue between Baseline and Camelback roads. Decorations
are installed beginning the week of Thanksgiving and remain through early January.
This amendment will provide additional funds for the decorations.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2026, with one optional
one-year renewal.

Financial Impact
Approval of this request will increase the aggregate contract value by $150,000, for a
revised total not to exceed $740,000. Funding is available in the Public Works
Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed Contract 156425 on September 4, 2024, under
Ordinance S-51216. The original contract award was approved on May 25, 2022,
under Ordinance S-48621.

Location
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Public Works
Department.






Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Jimmy Carter Way Ceremonial Sign Topper - District 8

Request City Council approval to install a ceremonial sign topper honoring Jimmy
Carter. The ceremonial sign topper will be installed at the intersection of 13th Street
and St. Anne Avenue (Attachment A).

Summary
Jimmy Carter was born James Earl Carter, Jr. born on October 1, 1924 and died on
December 29, 2024 at 100 years old. Jimmy Carter was the 39th president of the
United States, serving from 1977 to 1981 and served as the 76th governor of Georgia
from 1963 to 1967.

Although Jimmy Carter had no formal ties to the origin or leadership of the Habitat for
Humanity International Organization, he dedicated himself to alleviating human
suffering and promoting peace and human rights through the Carter Center. Through
the Carter Center, he led the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Work Project for Habitat for
Humanity for more than 30 years. Together they worked alongside over 108,100
volunteers who have built, renovated or repaired more than 4,447 homes in 14
countries, all while raising awareness of the critical need for affordable housing. The
location for the sign installation is within a neighborhood included in the Jimmy and
Rosalynn Carter Work Project.

Financial Impact
The fabrication, installation, and maintenance costs of the ceremonial sign topper will
be funded by the requestor.

Location
13th Street and St. Anne Avenue
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Street Transportation
Department.




ATTACHMENT A







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
24th Street Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation 2025 - Engineering Services -
WS85290033 (Ordinance S-52390) - District 6

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Wilson Engineers, LLC to provide Engineering Services that include design and
construction administration and inspection for the 24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Rehabilitation project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $14 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate and/or replace various treatment systems
due to age and usage.

Wilson Engineers, LLC's services include, but are not limited to: develop a
comprehensive set of contract documents including construction plans and
specifications adhering to current City standards, regulatory guidelines, and
requirements; attend regular meetings with the project team to discuss, coordinate,
and review the work progress and budget, resolve design issues, and document
meeting minutes; obtain all required permits for the construction and operation of the
modifications; provide all required services as necessary to implement alternative
design reviews, constructability reviews, quality control reviews that may be performed
by the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR); provide design services including



agency coordination, preparation of preliminary, pre-final and final plans and
consultation regarding the CMAR models and final cost proposal, assistance in the bid
evaluation and recommendation of contract award; provide value-engineering
recommendations to ensure the project will meet both the budget and schedule;
conduct pre-construction conference and hold subsequent meetings, as necessary,
with the project team; perform on-site examination of materials, equipment, and
workmanship; keep the City informed of the progress of the work, and will guard the
City against defects and deficiencies in such work and will disapprove or reject work
failing to conform to the contract documents; provide quality control services during the
course of construction to ensure that the overall technical correctness of the
construction phase services are being followed and that construction schedule is being
met; arrange and coordinate special inspection for structural, mechanical, and
electrical work, as required; provide start-up assistance and training services; prepare
and review project documents; and conduct a substantial and final completion
inspection.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Wilson Engineers, LLC

Additional Proposer
Rank 2: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Wilson Engineers, LLC will not exceed $14 million, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve


funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Location
24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager Ginger
Spencer, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easements - ABND 250036 - East of 23975 N. 19th Avenue
(Resolution 22341) - District 1

Abandonment: 250036
Project: 21-3516
Applicant: Robert Cole
Request: To abandon eight combined drainage and temporary access easements,
totaling approximately 102,356 square feet (2.37 acres).
Date of Decision: September 23, 2025

Location
Generally located east of 23975 N. 19th Avenue
Council District: 1

Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as part of this submittal, although filing fees
were paid.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easements - ABND 230070 - 5100 E. Roosevelt Street
(Resolution 22342) - District 6

Abandonment: 230070
Project: 23-446
Applicant: Iron Mountain Data Centers Arizona 3, LLC
Request: To abandon three portions of the drainage easements on the project site.
Abandonment one and three are abandoning portions of the drainage easement
dedicated with recently approved Park 52 and 202 plat (PLAT 210077) and grading
and report plan (CPGD 2109267), completed by Hunter Engineering. Abandonment
two is abandoning a portion of the existing drainage easement dedicated by a map of
dedication for Motorola in 1974 (Book 175, Page 27).
Date of Decision: February 23, 2024

Location
Generally located on 5100 E. Roosevelt Street
Council District: 6

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, Section 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges
the public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.

None. No consideration fee was required as part of this submittal, although filing fees
were paid.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 250021 - 9110 W. Lower Buckeye Road
(Resolution 22337) - District 8

Abandonment: 250021
Project: 21-966
Applicant: Steven Browser
Request: To abandon an irregular shaped drainage easement that totals 13,411
square feet and is located on property at 9110 W. Lower Buckeye Road.
Date of Decision: July 8, 2025

Location
Generally located at 9110 W. Lower Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, Section 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges
the public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.

None. No consideration fee was required as part of this submittal, although filing fees
were paid.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-59-25-1
(Tractor Supply Company - Phoenix Deer Valley PUD) - Approximately 660 Feet
East of the Southeast Corner of 43rd Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road
(Ordinance G-7441) - District 1

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 a
neighborhood commercial center.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 5.81 acres
Proposal: Neighborhood commercial center

Owner: Lennar Arizona, LLC
Applicant: STNL Development
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
July 15, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 16, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with
modifications and a deletion, by a vote of 9-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated October 6, 2025, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 660 feet east of the southeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Pinnacle
Peak Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Addresses: 3939, 4121, 4141, 4161, and 4181 W. Pinnacle Peak Road




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





ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SITE DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-59-25-1) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERICAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.81-acre site located approximately 660 feet

east of the southeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Pinnacle Pleak Road in a portion of

Section 15, Township 4 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A,” is hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) to “PUD” (Planning Unit

Development) to allow a neighborhood commercial center.

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. An updated Development Narrative for the Tractor Supply Company – Phoenix
Deer Valley 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 September 8, 2025, as modified by the
following stipulations.

a. Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”

b. Page 6, 1. General Development Standards, Table 1: General
Development Standards, E. Loading Hours, Setbacks and Screening, vi.
Screening for Outdoor Display Area / Plant Nursery, modify as follows:

The outside display area / plant nursery located to the south of the main
Phase I building shall be screened from view using opaque fencing and
gates of a height not less than 8 feet, or the height of the material being
screened, except that the southern edge may utilize a non-opaque black
vinyl coated chain link fence when parallel to and within 50 feet of the
southern property line. Black vinyl coated chain link fence and gates may
also be utilized along the western, eastern, and northern edges of the
outside display area / plant nursery only with a UV-stabilized
polypropylene fence screen material or similar fence screen material
fastened to the fence or gate and providing minimum 98 percent opacity,
with the color of the screen material subject to the approval of the
Planning and Development staff during the site plan review process. This
provision does not apply to permanent sidewalk display areas or
permanent trailer and equipment display areas.

c. Page 19, I. Comparative Zoning Standards, Table 6: Comparative Zoning
Standards, E. Loading Hours, Setbacks and Screening, vi. Screening for
Outdoor Display Area / Plant Nursery, modify as follows:

The outside display area / plant nursery located to the south of the main
Phase I building shall be screened from view using opaque fencing and
gates of a height not less than 8 feet, or the height of the material being
screened, except that the southern edge may utilize a non-opaque black
vinyl coated chain link fence when parallel to and within 50 feet of the
southern property line. Black vinyl coated chain link fence and gates may
also be utilized along the western, eastern, and northern edges of the
outside display area / plant nursery only with a UV-stabilized
polypropylene fence screen material or similar fence screen material
fastened to the fence or gate and providing minimum 98 percent opacity,




with the color of the screen material subject to the approval of the
Planning and Development staff during the site plan review process. This
provision does not apply to permanent sidewalk display areas or
permanent trailer and equipment display areas.

Revised language shall also be expressed in bold font.

2. There shall be direct accessible pedestrian connectivity between the Phase 1
building and the Phase II building independent of the required connection to the
city walk on Pinnacle Peak Road as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. All mitigation improvements shall be constructed and/or funded as identified and
assigned in the Traffic Impact Study approval letter dated April 24, 2025.

4. A proportionate amount of the funds totaling $2.3 million dollars, as stipulated in
Z-28-24-1, shall be deposited into an escrow account to the Street
Transportation Department, unless the total $2.3 million is satisfied by Stipulation
No. 9 of Rezoning Case No. Z-28-24-1, to reimburse the city installed
improvements adjacent to Pinnacle Peak Road by project ST85100400, prior to
final site plan approval. The proportionate amount of the funding contribution for
the subject site shall be based on the linear feet (LF) of the Pinnacle Peak Road
frontage improvements adjacent to the subject site as a portion of the linear feet
of the overall site’s frontage approved under Z-28-24-1.

5. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

8. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.




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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-59-25-1

PORTION OF MARICOPA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 206-40-011
INCLUSIVE OF ADJOINING 65’ OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EXTENDING TO CENTERLINE
OF PINNACLE PEAK RD.

A PORTION OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DECRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15, BEING
MARKED BY A BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLD, FROM WHICH THE NORTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15, BEING MARKED BY A BRASS CAP FLUSH
BEARS, NORTH 89 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, 2630.91 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST CORNER, 657.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 33
MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, 757.73 FEET;

THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 21 MINUTES
13 SECONDS EAST, 329.65 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, 757.97 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST, 329.87 FEET
TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 249,907 SQUARE FEET OR 5.7371 ACRESS, MORE OR
LESS.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-81-25-2 -
Approximately 200 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of 64th Street and Bell
Road (Ordinance G-7440) - District 2

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) to C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to allow a commercial
center.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-1
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 3.33
Proposal: Commercial center

Owner: Superstition Associates, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 8, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 200 feet west of the southwest corner of 64th Street and Bell Road
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 6245 E. Bell Road

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



ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-81-25-2) FROM C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD
RETAIL) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.33-acre property located approximately

200 feet west of the southwest corner of 64th Street and Bell Road in a portion of

Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A,” is hereby changed from “C-1” (Neighborhood Retail) to “C-2” (Intermediate

Commercial).

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. Upon complete redevelopment or development that increases the cumulative
floor area of the building by more than 15% from that depicted on the site plan
date stamped July 22, 2025, the following shall apply:

a. The existing streetscape along Bell Road, adjacent to the development,
shall be replenished to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

i. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-
tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings.

ii. A mixture of drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative
groundcovers, maintained to a maximum height of two feet,
evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas to achieve a
minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning
and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

b. The existing landscape planters within the surface parking lot shall be
replenished with minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy,
drought-tolerant, shade trees per 120 square feet of landscape planter
area, and a minimum of five 5-gallon drought-tolerant shrubs per tree
and a mixture of drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative
groundcovers, maintained to a maximum height of two feet, evenly
distributed throughout the landscape areas to achieve a minimum of
50% live coverage, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

c. Existing retention areas shall be replenished with minimum 2-inch
caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings, around the perimeter of the retention
areas, and a minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of
drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

d. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (bottom of
basin, and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and
functional turf areas located on properties, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.




e. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may
be achieved by structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought
tolerant, shade trees, or a combination thereof.

f. Provide a landscape irrigation plan that includes zones to establish the
amount of irrigation to apply based on maturity and type of the
landscaping. Irrigation should be applied efficiently based on the
maturity and need for the vegetation.

g. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Water
Efficiency Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

h. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development and/or Street
Transportation departments. This includes but is not limited to
stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc.,
per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact
Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

i. 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.

j. A minimum of 6 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided and installed
per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

k. All bicycle parking spaces and pedestrian pathways, including
sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

l. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric
Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

m. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




n. 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.

2. The existing landscape area along the south property line, adjacent to Juniper
Avenue, shall be replenished with minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy,
drought-tolerant, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, and a minimum of five 5-gallon drought-tolerant shrubs per tree and
a mixture of drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers,
evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas to achieve a minimum of
50% live coverage, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-81-25-2

A portion of the Northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 4 East of the
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more particularly
described as follows:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 4;

Thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 05 seconds West along the North line of said
Section 4, a distance of 229.45 feet;

Thence South 00 degrees 03 minutes 55 seconds West for a distance of 40.00 feet to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

Thence continuing South 00 degrees 03 minutes 55 seconds West, for a distance of
250.30 feet;

Thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 25 seconds West for a distance of 94.61 feet to
the beginning of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 400.00 feet;

Thence Westerly along said curve through a central angle of 19 degrees 10 minutes 25
seconds for a distance of 133. 86 feet;

Thence South 70 degrees 49 minutes 00 seconds West for a distance of 156.51 feet to
the beginning of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 185.00 feet;

Thence Westerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 23 degrees 51
minutes 53 seconds for a distance of 77.06 feet;

Thence North 00 degrees 03 minutes 55 seconds East for a distance of 119.77 feet;

Thence North 70 degrees 17 minutes 23 seconds East for a distance of 43.85 feet;

Thence North 19 degrees 42 minutes 37 seconds West for a distance of 175.50 feet;

Thence North 00 degrees 03 minutes 55 seconds East for a distance of 34.37 feet;

Thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 05 seconds East along the South right of way line
of Bell Road for a distance of 467.70 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within Juniper Avenue as dedicated to the City of
Phoenix at Book 274 of Maps, Page 41, records of Maricopa County, Arizona.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-95-25-2 -
Approximately 930 Feet West of the Northwest Corner of 32nd Street and
Mohawk Lane (Ordinance G-7443) - District 2

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
RE-35 (Single-Family Residence District) to A-1 (Light Industrial District) for a
contractor's yard with indoor and outdoor light industrial uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: RE-35
Proposed Zoning: A-1
Acreage: 5.14
Proposal: Contractor's yard, indoor and outdoor light industrial uses

Owner: Dallas Zyadet, Athenas Olive Tree, LLC
Applicant/Representative: David Richert, Richert & Associates

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 8, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with
an additional stipulation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated October 2, 2025, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 930 feet west of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Mohawk Lane
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 3014 and 3026 E. Mohawk Lane

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




ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SITE DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-95-25-2) FROM RE-35 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO A-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.14-acre site located approximately 930 feet

west of the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Mohawk Lane in a portion of Section

23, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is

hereby changed from “RE-35” (Single-Family Residence District) to “A-1” (Light

Industrial 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,




violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. A minimum 25-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along Mohawk
Lane and shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees, planted 20 feet
on center, or in equivalent groupings, and five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department
on alternative design solutions.

2. A minimum of one outdoor employee resting area of no less than 400 square
feet, or two 200-square-foot areas, shall be provided on site. The required
pedestrian areas shall include a minimum of two pedestrian seating benches,
constructed of quality and durable materials, and shaded to a minimum of 75%
using minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy, drought-tolerant, shade trees,
and/or architectural shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the office and installed per the requirements
of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere
to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan.

5. All bicycle parking and pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks, shall be
shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide a
minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

6. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.

7. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be EV capable
infrastructure.

8. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Businesses




Water Efficiency Checkup program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

9. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (bottom of basin,
and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization), as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

10. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) element for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

11. A minimum 10-foot sidewalk easement adjacent to the northern Mohawk Lane
right-of-way shall be dedicated. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be
constructed within the sidewalk easement on the north side of Mohawk Lane,
adjacent to the development.

12. Replace any broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on
all streets and upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with
current ADA guidelines.

13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

14. 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.

15. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

Exhibits:
A – Legal Description
B – Ordinance Location Map




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-95-25-2

Section 23 Township 4N Range 3E

213-12-012A
THE WEST ONE-HALF OF LOT 28, MOHAWK PARK, ACCORDING TO BOOK 58 OF
MAPS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

213-12-012B
THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT 28, MOHAWK PARK, ACCORDING TO BOOK 58 OF
MAPS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-SP-6-25-3 -
Approximately 300 Feet South of the Southeast Corner of Cave Creek Road and
Nisbet Road (Ordinance G-7442) - District 3

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special
Permit) to allow automobile retail sales and underlying C-2 uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 0.62
Proposal: Special Permit for automobile retail sales and underlying C-2 uses.

Owner/Applicant: Tom Morano, T. TJ. M. Enterprises One, LLC
Representative: Marty Hall

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 8, 2025, and recommended approval, per staff recommendation, by a vote
of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 300 feet south of the southeast corner of Cave Creek Road and Nisbet
Road
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 14853 N. Cave Creek Road

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


ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-SP-6-25-3) 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 0.62 acre property located approximately

300 feet south of the southeast corner of Cave Creek Road and Nisbet Road in a

portion of Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 3 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 automobile retail sales and

underlying C-2 uses.

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”




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. Landscape setbacks adjacent to the east property line shall be planted with
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy, drought tolerant shade trees, planted 20-
feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs
per tree and a mixture of shrubs, accents and vegetative ground coverage to
meet a minimum of 50% live coverage, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. The existing landscape strip between back of curb and sidewalk along Cave
Creek Road, adjacent to the development, shall be replenished with minimum 2-
inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought tolerant, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a mixture of drought tolerant
shrubs, accents and vegetative ground covers, maintained to a maximum height
of 2 feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas to achieve a
minimum of 75% live coverage, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments, that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

5. All bicycle parking spaces and pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks, shall
be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide a
minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

6. A minimum of one of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

7. A minimum of 5% of the required vehicle parking spaces shall include EV
Installed infrastructure.

8. A minimum of 25% of the employee and customer parking areas shall be
shaded, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Shade




may be achieved by structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant,
shade trees, or a combination thereof.

9. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

10. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Water
Efficiency Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

11. A singular access point shall be permitted onto Cave Creek Road.

12. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

14. 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.

15. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.


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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-SP-6-25-3


Lot 14 Paradise Plaza according to Book 93 of Maps, Page 35, Records of Maricopa
County, Arizona.

Assessors Tax Parcel(s): 214-66-014

Section:11 Township: 3N Range: 3E







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
OCTOBER 15, 2025) Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning
Application PHO-1-25--Z-29-12-7(5) - Southeast Corner of 99th Avenue and
Thomas Road (Ordinance G-7420) - District 5

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on June 18, 2025. This ratification
requires formal action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-29-12-7(5)
Existing Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 197.0

Owner: Sheely Ted D / ET AL c/o William Sheely / ET AL
Applicant / Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, P.L.C.

Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding the updated imagery within the
development narrative.

VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this request on June 12,
2025 and recommended approval with a vote of 12-1.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a modification
and an additional stipulation.

Location
Southeast corner of 99th Avenue and Thomas Road
Council District: 5
Parcel Address: 2209 N. 99th Ave.

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


PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 30, 2025
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua BednarekPlanning and Development Director

Subject: WITHDRAWAL OF ITEM 44 ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA
- PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION - PHO-1-25--Z-29-12-7(5)
-SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 99TH AVENUE AND THOMAS ROAD

Item 44, Planning Hearing Officer Application No. PHO-1-25--Z-29-12-7(5). This is a
request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding the updated imagery within the development
narrative located at southeast corner of 99th Avenue and Thomas Road.

In order to address outstanding issues with the proposed application and allow the City
Council an opportunity to consider modifications to the proposal, staff recommends
withdrawing the case so that it can be advertised for a public hearing at the November 19,
2025, City Council Formal meeting.




Approved: '
l
Alan Stephenson Date
Deputy City Manager




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-29-12-7(5)
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-5779.

____________




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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the site located at the

southeast corner of 99th Avenue and Thomas Road in a portion of Section 33,

Township 2 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit A and

depicted in Exhibit B, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sheely Center 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 JUNE 6, 2025
September 27, 2012, as modified by the following stipulations.

2. The applicant shall submit a revised Traffic Impact Study to the Street
Transportation Department and Planning and Development Department
prior to preliminary site plan approval. The applicant shall be responsible
for any dedications and required improvements adjacent to the boundaries
of the subject property as recommended by the traffic study, as approved
by the Street Transportation Department and Planning and Development
Department.



3. ALL STREETS, WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT,
SHALL BE DEDICATED AND CONSTRUCTED PER THE APPROVED
SHEELY FARMS MASTER STREET PLAN. The applicant shall submit a
street alignment plan for public streets (design and alignment for all
arterial and collector streets), prior to preliminary site plan approval, for
review and approval by the Street Transportation Department and
Planning and Development Department.

4. Access to McDowell Road shall be reviewed by ADOT, Maricopa County,
city of Tolleson, and the city of Phoenix. Notification of such review shall
be submitted to the Street Transportation Department and the Planning
and Development Department prior to preliminary site plan approval.

5. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscape and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall
comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

6. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.

SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-5779, this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-5779 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 27th day of August

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR
________________________________
Date

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By: _________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager


Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-25--Z-29-12-7(5)


The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-29-
12-7(5)

THAT PART OF PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 LYING WEST OF THE WESTERLY
LINE OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF ARIZONA BY
DEED RECORDED JULY 31, 1998 IN 98-663064 AND NORTH OF THE
NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE ROOSEVELT IRRIGATION DISTRICT
MAIN CANAL.

PARCEL NO. 1:

THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,
RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA:

EXCEPT THE NORTH 33 FEET AND THE WEST 70 FEET; AND

EXCEPT A TRIANGULAR SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE NORTH 200.00 FEET AND THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 70 FEET OF
SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33;

THENCE EASTERLY 5 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
NORTH 200.00 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE IN A SOUTH-SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF THE WEST 70 FEET THAT IS 600 00 FEET SOUTHERLY
FROM SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION;

THENCE NORTHERLY TO SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION; AND EXCEPT A
PARCEL DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE NORTH 33 FEET AND THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 75 FEET OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33;

THENCE EASTERLY 35 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 33
FEET TOA POINT;




THENCE IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO A POINT ON SAID EAST
LINE OF THE WEST 75 FEET THAT IS 35 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM SAID
POINT OF INTERSECTION;

THENCE NORTHERLY TO SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION, AND EXCEPT
THE EAST 5 FEET OF THE WEST 75 FEET OF THE SOUTH 167.00 FEET OF
THE NORTH 200.00 FEET OF SAID SECTION 33.

PARCEL NO 2:

THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 298.72 FEET OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33, AS CONVEYED TO THE
ROOSEVELT IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BY THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED
IN BOOK 218 OF DEEDS, PAGE 366, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA; AND INSTRUMENT 84-3648, AND

EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCH EXTENDING FROM NORTH TO
SOUTH BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION
33; ALONG AND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE EAST LINE THEREOF AS
CONVEYED TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THAT CERTAIN DEED
RECORDED IN BOOK 175 OF DEEDS, PAGE 429, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND

EXCEPT THE WEST 65 FEET.

PARCEL NO 3:

PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
33, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER
BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHICH THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 33 BEARS SOUTH 88 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 30 SECONDS
WEST 120 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 11 MINUTES WEST 367 70 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 44 DEGREEES 36 MINUTES EAST 189.60 FEET;




THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 23 MINUTES EAST 88 90 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 01 MINUTES EAST 416.71 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 44 DEGREES 18 MINUTES EAST 246.60 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 56 DEGREES 58 MINUTES EAST 54.85 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 00 MINUTES EAST 2070.23 FEET,
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 12 MINUTES EAST 50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 00 MINUTES EAST 60 FEET (FROM WHICH
POINT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33 BEARS
SOUTH 0 DEGREES 12 MINUTES WEST 160 FEET);

THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 12 MINUTES EAST ALONG THE MIDSECTION
LINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 1170 FEET TO NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 33;

THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 2525.89 FEET TO THE
PLACE OF BEGINNING,

EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCH LYING IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE
EAST LINE CONVEYED TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DEED
RECORDED IN BOOK 175 OF DEEDS, PAGE 429, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; AND

EXCEPT THE EAST 90 FEET OF THE WEST 298.72 FEET OF THE SOUTH
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33, LYING
NORTH OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE
ROOSEVELT IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAIN CANAL;

ALSO BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE
OF THE WEST 208.72 FEET AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33;

THENCE WEST 75 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; 75 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST 75 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, 75 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TO A POINT ON SAID EAST
LINE OF THE WEST 208.72 FEET THAT IS 75 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM
SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION;




THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION.

PARCEL NO. 4:

THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE­
QUARTER (S½ OF SW¼) OF SECTION THIRTY-THREE (33), TOWNSHIP
TWO (2) NORTH, RANGE ONE (1) EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER
BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:

PARCEL A

THAT PART OF THE WEST 208 72 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF
THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER (S½ OF SW¼) OF SAID SECTION 33,
LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND NINETY (90) FEET WIDE ON A CENTER
LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

USING AS A BASE THE SOUTH ONE-HALF (S½) OF THE WEST LINE OF
SECTION THIRTY-THREE (33), TOWNSHIP TWO (2) NORTH, RANGE ONE
(1) EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, WITH AN
ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH 0'04' EAST;

BEGINNING AT A POINT 256.9 FEET EAST OF AND 308.7 FEET NORTH OF
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33, AND RUNNING
THENCE NORTH 0'06' WEST 453 7 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE NORTH 45'06' WEST 247.6 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE PARALLEL TO AND 78.0 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SECTION 33, NORTH 0'04 EAST 476.0 FEET;

EXCEPT THE WEST SIXTY-FIVE (65) FEET OF SAID SECTION 33.

PARCEL B·

THAT PART OF THE WEST 208.72 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (S½ OF SW¼) OF SAID SECTION 33, LYING
NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 717.44 FEET OF SAID
SECTION 33 AND WEST OF PARCEL A AS DESCRIBED ABOVE:

EXCEPT THE WEST SIXTY-FIVE (65) FEET OF SAID SECTION 33







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-SP-8-25-6 -
Approximately 165 Feet North and 450 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of 7th
Street and Glendale Avenue (Ordinance G-7439) - District 6

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special
Permit) to allow massage therapy and all underlying C-2 uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 0.05
Proposal: Massage therapy and all underlying C-2 uses

Owner: WRI Madison Village, LP
Applicant/Representative: Jack Snyder, Hand and Stone Massage and Facial Spa

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 9, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 16-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 165 feet north and 450 feet east of the northeast corner of 7th Street
and Glendale Avenue
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 716, 724, and 742 E. Glendale Avenue; and 7005 and 7015 N. 7th
Street






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





ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SITE DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-SP-8-25-6) 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 0.05 acre site located approximately 165 feet

north and 450 feet east of the northeast corner of 7th Street and Glendale Avenue in a

portion of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 3 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 massage therapy 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.”




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. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________




REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-SP-8-25-6

A PORTION OF THE PARCEL AS DESCRIBED IN SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
2019-0214789 MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS AND LYING IN
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4 FROM WHICH
THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER BEARS SOUTH 89 DEGREES 44
MINUTES 01 SECONDS EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 2679.25 FEET (BASIS OF
BEARING):

THENCE SOUTH 8 9 DEGREES 4 4 MINUTES 0 1 SECONDS EAST ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 476.24
FEET;

THENCE ON A RANDOM BEARING NORTH 0 0 DEGREES 15 MINUTES
59 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 208.49 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
AN EXISTING BUILDING AND SUITE # 166 BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 01 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE
WEST SIDE
OF SAID SUITE #166, A DISTANCE OF 80.62 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE
NORTH FACE OF SAID BUILDING AND SUITE #166, A DISTANCE OF 28.67 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 01 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE
EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SUITE #166, A DISTANCE OF 80.62 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 8 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST ALONG
THE SOUTH FACE OF SAID BUILDING AND SUITE #166, A DISTANCE OF 28.67
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

CONTAINING #2311 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-NG-1-
25-2 - Northeast Corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive (Resolution
22339) - District 2

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if
approved. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designations on 112.47
acres to Commercial and an update to the City Trails System Map. This is a
companion case to Z-24-25-2 and should be heard first, followed by Z-24-25-2.

Summary
Application: GPA-NG-1-25-2
Current Designation: Parks / Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(72.96 acres), Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre (34.76 acres), Preserves / Floodplain (4.11 acres),
Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (0.63 acres), and Preserves /
Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre / Residential 10
to 15 dwelling units per acre (0.01 acres)
Proposed Designation: Commercial
Acreage: 112.47
Proposed Use: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow commercial, retail, and
hospitality uses; and an update to the City Trails System Map to remove the multi-use
trail designation along Sonoran Desert Drive and Dove Valley Road, and adding an
east-west shared-use path between the I-17 freeway and Skunk Creek Wash.

Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Dennis Newcombe, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Representative: Manjula Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 11, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 6-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee



recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: N/A

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





ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION



RESOLUTION


A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-NG-1-25-2,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE CITY
TRAILS NETWORK MAP FOR THE SITE DESCRIBED HEREIN.

____________


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

follows:

SECTION 1. The 2025 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by

Resolution 22191, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-NG-1-25-2. The 112.47 acres

of site located at the northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive is

designated as Commercial.

SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the 2025 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification and trails

system change as shown below:




PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of November

2025.


-2- Resolution

MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney



By:___________________________
___________________________



REVIEWED BY:


______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




-3- Resolution


ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 4, 2025

Application: GPA-NG-1-25-2

Applicant: Dennis Newcombe, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Representative: Manjula Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Owner: Arizona State Land Department

Location: Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran
Desert Drive

Acreage: 112.47 acres

Current Plan Designation: Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
units per acre (72.96 acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per
acre / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(34.76 acres)
Preserves / Floodplain (4.11 acres)
Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per
acre (0.63 acres)
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre / Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre (0.01 acres)

Requested Plan Designation: Commercial (112.47 acres)

Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow
commercial, retail, and hospitality uses; and an
update to the City Trails System Map to remove the
multi-use trail designation along Sonoran Desert
Drive and Dove Valley Road, and adding an east-
west shared-use path between the I-17 freeway and
Skunk Creek Wash

North Gateway Meeting Date: September 11, 2025




Staff Analysis
GPA-NG-1-25-2


Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The subject site is appropriate for commercial uses as it is adjacent to the Village
Core and within the North Black Canyon Corridor.

2) The subject site is appropriate for additional commercial uses as it is strategically
located near the I-17 freeway and nearby planned residences.

3) The companion rezoning case, Z-24-25-2, proposes development that is
consistent with land uses in the surrounding area.

4) The proposed update to the City Trail System Map is consistent with
development to the west of the Interstate 17 and will still provide connectivity to
the west via a shared-use path connecting to the future pedestrian and bicycle
bridge across the freeway.

BACKGROUND

The subject site (General Plan Amendment area) is 112.47 acres and is located at the
northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive. The subject site is currently
vacant land. The companion rezoning case Z-24-25-2 is requesting to rezone the site
from 87.25 acres of S-1 NBCOD (Ranch or Farm Residence, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) and 5.08 acres of FH PCD NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion
Management District, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District)
to 92.08 acres of C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver,
North Black Canyon Overlay District) and 0.25 acres of FH NBCOD (Flood Hazard and
Erosion Management District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to allow
commercial, retail, and hospitality uses. The General Plan Land Use Map designations
of the subject site are 72.96 acres of Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, 34.76 acres of Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, 4.11 acres of Preserves / Floodplain, 0.63
acres of Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre, and 0.01 acres of
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre /
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposed General Plan Amendment is
to designate the site as Commercial.

The request also includes an update to the City Trails System Map to remove the multi-
use trail along the south side of Dove Valley Road and the north side of Sonoran Desert
Drive adjacent to the development, west of the Skunk Creek Wash multi-use trail; and
the addition of an east-west shared-use path west of Skunk Creek Wash to the I-17
freeway. The site to the west, across the I-17, will not be constructing multi-use trails on
either road; thus, if these multi-use trails were constructed, they would not connect west
of the I-17. These multi-use trails will instead terminate and connect at the Skunk Creek



Staff Analysis
GPA-NG-1-25-2


Wash multi-use trail. The east-west shared-use path from Skunk Creek Wash to the I-
17 will provide connectivity to a proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the I-17
freeway and serves as the Paseo del Prado as envisioned by the North Gateway Village
Core Plan.

SURROUNDING LAND USES

NORTH
To the north is designated as Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre /
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.

SOUTH
To the south is designated as Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, and Preserves / Floodplain.

EAST
To the east is designated as Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Preserves / Floodplain.

WEST
To the west is designated as Transportation.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES

• CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS &
CORRIDORS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate land uses with the greatest
height and most intense uses within village cores, centers and corridors
based on village character, land use needs, and transportation system
capacity.

The site is located adjacent to the North Gateway Village Core, is within the
North Black Canyon Corridor, and is located within the Infrastructure Limit Line,
which promotes a concentration of higher-intensity uses to be located within the
corridor.

• CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS &
CORRIDORS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Plan cores, centers and corridors to
include a variety of land uses: office, retail shopping, entertainment and
cultural, housing, hotel and resort, and where appropriate, some types of
industry.




Staff Analysis
GPA-NG-1-25-2


The proposal will provide this corridor along the I-17 freeway with a variety of
land uses including commercial, retail, and hospitality uses.

• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate
neighborhood retail to be easily accessible to neighborhoods.

The site is located nearby planned residential within the surrounding areas.

• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CANALS AND TRAILS;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Plan, design, and develop pedestrian linkages
between parks, open spaces, village cores, neighborhood shopping
centers, neighborhood schools, and neighboring municipalities.

The proposed update to the City Trail System Map will provide a pedestrian
linkage to the proposed commercial center via a shared-use path that will serve
as the Paseo del Prado on the site, connecting to future pedestrian and bicycle
bridges that will connect to multifamily residential developments to the east of
Skunk Creek Wash and to the future Halo Vista development to the west.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-NG-1-25-2 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and policies of the General Plan and will result in land use designations that will
maximize the property’s location adjacent to a freeway. Along with the companion
rezoning case, Z-24-25-2, the General Plan Amendment will allow a compatible mix of
land uses that will provide additional commercial to the North Gateway community.
Additionally, the update to the City Trails System Map is consistent with how the site to
the west, across the I-17 freeway, is being developed and will still provide connectivity
via the east-west shared-use path.

Writer
Adrian Zambrano
September 4, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Maps (4 pages)




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-NG-1-25-2 (Land Use) ACRES: 112.47+/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: NORTH GATEWAY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 8/22/2025
APPLICANT: Gammage & Burnham, PLC
EXISTING:
Parks/ Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 72.96 +/- Acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 34.76 +/- Acres)
Preserves / Floodplain ( 4.11 +/- Acres)
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac ( 0.63 +/- Acres)
§
¨
¦
26TH LN
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 du/ac / ( 0.01 +/- Acres)
ND
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac 32
E
AV
Proposed Change Area DOVE VAL
LEY RD
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac
Residential 5 to 10 du/ac
Residential 5 to 15 du/ac
Commercial
Transportation
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac
Commercial / Commerce / Business Park
Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 du/ac / Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 du/ac
Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Mixed Use (North Gateway and Northwest Area only)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac or Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Preserves / Commercial
Preserves / Floodplain
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 du/ac / Residential 10 to 15 du/ac




w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Commercial ( 112.47 +/- Acres)
§
¨
¦
26TH LN
ND
E
AV
DOVE VAL
LEY RD


Proposed Change Area
Commercial




w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR



GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-NG-1-25-2 (Land Use) ACRES: 112.47+/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: NORTH GATEWAY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 8/22/2025
APPLICANT: Gammage & Burnham, PLC
EXISTING:
Parks/ Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 72.96 +/- Acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 34.76 +/- Acres)
" " " " " "
Preserves / Floodplain ( 4.11 +/- Acres)

§
¨
¦
" " " " " "
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac ( 0.63 +/- Acres)
17 " " " " " "




26TH LN
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 du/ac / ( 0.01 +/- Acres) 32 "
"
" " " " "
" " " " "
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac ND " " " " " "
" " " " " "
E
AV
" " " " " "

DOVE VAL
" " " " " "
Proposed Change Area
LEY RD " " " " " "

Residential 2 to 5 du/ac
Residential 5 to 10 du/ac
Residential 5 to 15 du/ac
Commercial
Transportation
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac
Commercial / Commerce / Business Park
Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 / Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 du/ac
Parks / Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Mixed Use (North Gateway and Northwest Area only)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Preserves / Commercial
Preserves / Floodplain
" " " "
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 du/ac / Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
" " " "




v
w
303 SONORAN DESERT DR




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Commercial ( 112.47 +/- Acres)
§
¨
¦
26TH LN
ND
E
AV
DOVE VAL
LEY RD


Proposed Change Area
Commercial




w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR



GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-NG-1-25-2 (Trails) ACRES: REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: NORTH GATEWAY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 8/22/2025
APPLICANT: Gammage & Burnham, PLC
EXISTING:
Existing Muti-Use Trail and Shared-Use Path

§
¨
¦
26TH LN
ND
E
AV
DOVE VAL
LEY RD


Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
Proposed Change Area




v
w
303 SONORAN DESERT DR




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Remove Multi-Use Trail along
Sonoran Desert Drive ( 0.20 mi +/-)
§
¨
¦
26TH LN
Remove Multi-Use Trail along ND
Dove Valley Road ( 0.30 mi +/-) E
AV
DOVE VAL
LE Y RD
Addition of Shared-Use Path from
Skunk Creek Wash west to I-17( 0.17 mi +/-)



Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
Proposed Change Area




w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR



GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-NG-1-25-2 (Trails) ACRES: REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: NORTH GATEWAY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 8/22/2025
APPLICANT: Gammage & Burnham, PLC
EXISTING:
Existing Muti-Use Trail and Shared-Use Path

§
¨
¦
26TH LN
ND
E
AV
DOVE VAL
LEY RD


Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
Proposed Change Area




v
w
303 SONORAN DESERT DR




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Remove Multi-Use Trail along
Sonoran Desert Drive ( 0.20 mi +/-)
§
¨
¦
26TH LN
Remove Multi-Use Trail along ND
Dove Valley Road ( 0.30 mi +/-) E
AV
DOVE VAL
LEY RD
Addition of Shared-Use Path from
Skunk Creek Wash west to I-17( 0.17 mi +/-)



Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
Proposed Change Area




w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR



ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-NG-1-25-2



Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2025
Request From Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units
per acre / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Preserves / Floodplain, Commercial / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre, and Preserves / Mixed Use /
Commercial / Residential 5 to 15 dwelling units per
acre
Request To Commercial
Proposal Commercial, retail, and hospitality uses; and an update
to the City Trails System Map removing multi-use trails
along Sonoran Desert Drive and Dove Valley Road,
and adding an east-west shared-use path between the
I-17 freeway and Skunk Creek Wash
Location Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert
Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 6-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-NG-1-25-2) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-24-25-2) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

Committee Member Paul Li declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from this
item, bringing the quorum to six members.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of General Plan Amendment case GPA-
NG-1-25-2, including the location of the request, the General Plan Land Use Map
designation, and surrounding General Plan Land Use Map designations. Mr. Zambrano
shared the proposal and noted that the request also includes an update to the City
Trails Network Map. Mr. Zambrano displayed the existing and proposed trails map. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 200
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NG-1-25-2

Zambrano stated that the proposal has not received any letters of opposition or support.
Mr. Zambrano shared the staff findings and stated that staff recommends approval. Mr.
Zambrano then provided an overview of rezoning case Z-24-25-2, including the location
of the request and surrounding zoning and land uses. Mr. Zambrano shared
background information on the site regarding the North Black Canyon Major
Employment Corridor, the North Gateway Village Core Plan, and the North Black
Canyon Corridor Plan. Mr. Zambrano noted that the Parks and Recreation Department
confirmed that the 110-acre district park envisioned for the subject site within the North
Gateway Village Core Plan is now planned for another location. Mr. Zambrano
displayed the site plan, elevations, and rendering for the proposed project and stated
that as noted in the staff report, the proposal supports the goals, policies, and
recommendations of several adopted plans, policies, and initiatives. Mr. Zambrano
stated that the proposal has not received any letters of support or opposition. Mr.
Zambrano shared the staff findings and stated that staff recommends approval subject
to stipulations. Mr. Zambrano shared the recommended stipulations and next steps for
public hearings.

Applicant Presentation:
Manjula Vaz, with Gammage & Burnham, PLC, introduced herself and her team. Ms.
Vaz stated that they have been working with City staff for over a year. Ms. Vaz stated
that they have tried to take into account all of the policy plans in the area. Ms. Vaz
stated that the height waiver request is for four-story hotels as they come in, which is
consistent with other approved height waivers in the area.

David Larcher, with Vestar, introduced himself and shared other shopping centers that
Vestar has developed within the Phoenix metropolitan area. Mr. Larcher stated that this
would be a high-quality development, similar to the other shopping centers that Vestar
has developed. Mr. Larcher stated that Vestar is a long-term holder of their
developments.

Kean Thomas, with Vestar, displayed and discussed the proposed site plan and
surrounding developments. Mr. Thomas summarized off-site improvements that Vestar
will be building and shared ultimate street cross-sections. Mr. Thomas discussed the
proposed trail connectivity. Mr. Thomas discussed the conceptual design, noting that it
would comply with the North Black Canyon Overlay District. Mr. Thomas discussed the
amenities that would be included. Mr. Thomas discussed the proposed amendment to
the City Trails Network Map. Mr. Thomas displayed and discussed the 32nd Avenue
cross-section and multi-use trail. Mr. Thomas concluded that the proposed development
conforms with adopted policy plans for the village and noted that Vestar looks forward to
contributing to the North Gateway Village through thoughtful placemaking and design.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Aaron Stein asked how many points of ingress and egress
would be located off of the Interstate 17 freeway. Ms. Vaz responded that there would
be seven points of ingress and egress.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 201
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NG-1-25-2

Mr. Thomas clarified that the ingress and egress off of the Interstate 17 freeway would
be off of a frontage road with deceleration lanes, noting that it would be a normal street
condition, including a sidewalk and landscaping.

Chair Julie Read stated that she met with Vestar to get some questions answered and
to provide some input regarding items that were important to the community. Chair
Read stated that there was a lot of time spent on the design. Chair Read stated that
because the North Gateway Village Core did not develop how it was originally
envisioned as, the North Gateway Village lacked a vision for future development within
the village. Chair Read stated that in other parts of the city, people know where they
are because of how it is designed, such as the Biltmore Fashion Park, Midtown
Phoenix, Roosevelt Row, or the Melrose District. Chair Read stated that the North
Gateway Village lacks this type of placemaking that other places throughout the city
have. Chair Read stated that the North Gateway Village has the largest amount of
State Trust Land within the City of Phoenix, noting that the village will continue to grow
and develop. Chair Read stated that part of the job of being a committee member is to
be really thoughtful of new development and ensure it aligns with how the community
wants the village to develop. Chair Read stated that this would be the first retail
development for the North Gateway Village, and it will set the tone for all future
development in the village. Chair Read stated that she wants to make sure that while
the community has a say, that the community really likes the way it is going to look,
and that it ties into the Sonoran Desert and Sonoran Preserve. Chair Read stated that
the applicant has done a great job of being really thoughtful on the design. Chair Read
stated that the proposed site plan is not final, and it may change, but noted that it is a
good start and a good representation of what is to come. Chair Read stated that she
requested that Vestar ensure that the trail stations be cleaned and that the trash bins
be emptied regularly, noting that Vestar as the property management company will be
in charge of this maintenance. Chair Read added that she requested that pet waste
stations be provided throughout the site and that they be maintained. Chair Read
stated that she wants to ensure that the amenities are clean and safe for the
community members that will be using it. Chair Read stated that Vestar has agreed to
these items. Chair Read stated that she also asked that Vestar ensure that the open
spaces within both Vestar projects are exciting and activating for the community. Chair
Read stated that the village has a lot of young families and there are not a lot of places
to go within the village for families to spend time together. Chair Read referenced the
water features at Desert Ridge Marketplace and Scottsdale Quarter, and how families
could spend a good part of the day there. Chair Read stated that having community
gathering spots is very important to this community. Chair Read stated that there
should be less asphalt and pavement and more places to connect with neighbors and
families. Chair Read added that arts and culture plays a big role in developing
communities. Chair Read stated that the City of Phoenix has great arts and culture
pieces, but none are within the North Gateway Village. Chair Read stated that she has
challenged Vestar to think creatively and has asked Vestar to work with local artists to
bring arts and culture into the North Gateway Village. Chair Read stated that the
Thompson Thrift project included a stipulation for inclusion of a mural that the
Committee voted on. Chair Read stated that she hoped to see this type of art moving
forward for the Vestar property. Chair Read stated that Dove Valley Road is currently

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 202
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NG-1-25-2

scalloped and is dangerous to drive on with how development has occurred along the
roadway. Chair Read stated that Vestar has agreed that the construction of Dove
Valley Road will be completed as one of their first improvements. Chair Read stated
that she has also asked Vestar to include improvements around the APS substation at
North Valley Parkway and Carefree Highway. Chair Read asked Mr. Thomas to explain
the relationship with APS.

Mr. Thomas stated that APS has control over their property and Vestar cannot touch
their easements or their property. Mr. Thomas stated that Vestar does have enough
room on their property to program buildings and landscaping around the APS
substation in order to shield it. Mr. Thomas stated that Vestar cannot touch the east
side of the substation, but there is a lot to be done on the north and west side of it to
make it look more attractive with buildings and landscaping, depending on what APS
will allow close to their easements.

Chair Read stated that she hopes to facilitate some conversations between Vestar and
APS about what those improvements might look like. Chair Read stated that there is an
APS substation at the southwest corner of 7th Street and Roosevelt Street which is
hidden behind artistic walls and buildings. Chair Read stated that she hopes that there
could be a similar creative solution to screen the APS substation that will add value
and bring arts and culture and community activation to the area. Chair Read stated that
there is a big sign across the street for the Melrose District and when crossing under it,
people know that they are in the Melrose District. Chair Read stated that the North
Gateway Village has its name because it is the north gateway into the City of Phoenix.
Chair Read stated that she has asked Vestar to be creative for some sort of monument
sign, similar to the sign for the Desert Ridge Marketplace. Chair Read also requested
that no cacti or pointy plants be planted adjacent to areas where kids may be playing.

Public Comments:
None.

Applicant Response:
None.

MOTION – GPA-NG-1-25-2:
Committee Member Andrea Crouch motioned to recommend approval of GPA-NG-1-
25-2, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Kylie Kennelley seconded
the motion.

VOTE – GPA-NG-1-25-2:
6-0; the motion to recommend approval of GPA-NG-1-25-2 per the staff
recommendation passed with Committee members Crouch, Kennelly, Manion, Salow,
Stein, and Read in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 203
ATTACHMENT D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
OCTOBER 6, 2025

ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-NG-1-25-2 (Companion Case Z-24-25-2)
Location: Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive
Request 1): Land Use Map Amendment
From: Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 3.5 to
5 dwelling units per acre, Preserves / Floodplain, Commercial / Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre, and Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial /
Residential 5 to 15 dwelling units per acre
To: Commercial
Request 2): Trail Map Amendment
Removal of the multi-use trails along Sonoran Desert Drive and Dove
Valley Road, and the addition of an east-west shared use path.
Acreage: 112.47
Proposal: A Minor General Plan Amendment (GPA) to allow commercial, retail, and
hospitality uses; and an update to the City Trails Map removing multiuse
trails along Sonoran Desert Drive and Dove Valley Road; and adding an
east-west shared use path between the I-17 Freeway and 32nd Avenue.
Applicant: Dennis Newcombe, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Manjula Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
North Gateway 9/11/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 6-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the North Gateway Village Planning
Committee recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve GPA-NG-1-25-2, per the
North Gateway Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Matthews
Second: Odegard-Begay
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Hu
Opposition Present: No.

Findings:

1. The subject site is appropriate for commercial uses as it is adjacent to the Village Core
and within the North Black Canyon Corridor.
2. The subject site is appropriate for additional commercial uses as it is strategically
located near the I-17 freeway and nearby planned residences.

3. The companion rezoning case, Z-24-25-2, proposes development that is consistent with
land uses in the surrounding area.

4. The proposed update to the City Trail System Map is consistent with development to
the west of the Interstate 17 and will still provide connectivity to the west via a shared-
use path connecting to the future pedestrian and bicycle bridge across the freeway.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-24-25-2 -
Northeast Corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive (Ordinance G-7444) -
District 2

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 NBCOD (Ranch or Farm Residence, North Black Canyon Overlay District) and FH
PCD NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion Management District, Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate
Commercial, Height Waiver, North Black Canyon Overlay District) and FH NBCOD
(Flood Hazard and Erosion Management District, North Black Canyon Overlay District)
to allow commercial, retail, and hospitality uses. This is a companion case and must
be heard following GPA-NG-1-25-2.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 NBCOD (87.25 acres) and FH PCD NBCOD (5.08 acres)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD (92.08 acres) and FH NBCOD (0.25 acres)
Acreage: 92.33
Proposal: Commercial, retail, and hospitality uses

Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Dennis Newcombe, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Representative: Manjula Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 11, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 6-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated October 6, 2025, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A




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





ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SITE DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-24-25-2) FROM S-1 NBCOD (RANCH OR
FARM RESIDENCE, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY
DISTRICT) AND FH PCD NBCOD (FLOOD HAZARD AND
EROSION MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO
C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
HEIGHT WAIVER, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY
DISTRICT) AND FH NBCOD (FLOOD HAZARD AND EROSION
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY
DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 92.33-acre site located at the northeast

corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive in a portion of Section 14, Township 5

North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed

from 87.25 acres of “S-1 NBCOD” (Ranch or Farm Residence, North Black Canyon

Overlay District) and 5.08 acres of “FH PCD NBCOD” (Flood Hazard and Erosion

Management District, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District)




to 92.08 acres of “C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD” (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver,

North Black Canyon Overlay District) and 0.25 acres of “FH NBCOD” (Flood Hazard

and Erosion Management District, North Black Canyon Overlay District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size
and location, and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. Colors shall be muted and blend, rather than contrast strongly, with the
surrounding desert environment, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. All surface retention areas shall be natural and organic in shape, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

4. Retention areas shall be planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings, and planted for every 400 square
feet of retention area evenly distributed throughout the retention areas.

b. A minimum of five, 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs,
accents, and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout
the landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.

5. A minimum of 8,000 square feet in aggregate shall be provided for pedestrian
plazas, with no one plaza being less than 2,000 square feet, and shall be
maintained by the property owner as a gathering place for the public and for




events, adhering to the following standards, and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

a. The plazas shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not
be restricted during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

b. The plazas shall include shaded seating for public use and a minimum
of two additional amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game
area, interactive art feature, splash pad, performance stage, fire pit, or
other similar amenities.

c. A minimum of 50% of the plaza edges shall be lined with buildings or a
permanent shade structure. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor
building frontages facing the plaza, measured as the area between 3
and 8 feet above grade for the width of the facade, shall be glazing,
consisting of clear windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the
visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either
side of the window.

6. A minimum 6-foot-wide public north-south pedestrian pathway shall be
provided near the center of the site, west of 32nd Avenue, for a minimum of the
north half of the site and connecting to Dove Valley Road, and shall comply
with the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian
pathway is a minimum of 16 feet wide:

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum
2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage,
except where drive aisles cross the pathway where necessary.
Structural shade elements may be used, and footers may be
placed within the landscape strip along the pathway.

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75% of the ground floor frontages facing the
pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8
feet above grade for the width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as
specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the
window.




b. The pathway shall connect with the public plazas.

c. The pathway can either continue to the south portion of the site, as
specified above, or connect to the sidewalk on the west side of 32nd
Avenue.

7. Any surface parking adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and 32nd Avenue shall be
setback a minimum of 50 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Dove Valley Road between the shared-use path (SUP) on the
east side of Skunk Creek Wash and the multi-use trail (MUT) on the west side
of Skunk Creek Wash, and a minimum 10-foot-wide MUT shall be constructed
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

9. A 25-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
west bank of Skunk Creek Wash aligned with the limits of development, west of
the Floodway Zone AE boundary, and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail
(MUT) shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail, and shall comply with the following, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The MUT on the west side of Skunk Creek Wash shall connect Dove
Valley Road and Sonoran Desert Drive.

b. A minimum of 75% of the MUT shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping, or a combination of the two.

c. Trail stations shall be provided along the trail, generally conforming to
the site plan date stamped August 26, 2025. The trail stations shall
include amenities such as outdoor seating, shade structures, water
stations, bike fix it station, art features, or other similar amenities.

10. A minimum landscape setback of 10 feet shall be provided along the west side
of the Skunk Creek Wash multi-use trail, planted to the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, to provide a
minimum of 75% shade along the multi-use trail.

b. A minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs,
accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a maximum




height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas to
achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.

11. A minimum 25-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be
dedicated, and a minimum 10-foot-wide east-west shared-use path (SUP) shall
be constructed west of 32nd Avenue, in alignment with the Paseo Del Prado
trail/bridge and connecting to the future pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the
Interstate 17 freeway, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The paseo shall connect the sidewalk along the west side of 32nd
Avenue to the sidewalk along the east side of the I-17 frontage road.

b. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building
placement creates an alignment and synergy for the paseo. This can be
achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor
seating, and points of architectural interest along the paseo.

c. The paseo shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two:

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum
2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage,
except where drive aisles cross the pathway where necessary.
Structural shade elements may be used, and footers may be
placed within the landscape strip along the paseo.

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75% of the ground floor frontages facing the
pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8
feet above grade for the width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as
specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the
window.

12. Where pedestrian pathways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

13. Bicycle parking shall be provided per the requirements of Section 1307.H.6 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle parking shall be provided through




Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and open
space areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

14. Two public bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided and
maintained: one along the multi-use trail adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and
one internal to the site near a paseo, pedestrian walkway, or public plaza. The
bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided in areas of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable.
The repair station shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools
affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station
or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

15. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

16. A minimum of 10% of the provided bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

17. A minimum of 30 of the required vehicle parking spaces shall include EV
Capable infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by
the Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. Only landscape materials listed in Appendix A of the North Black Canyon
Overlay District (Section 654 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance) shall be
utilized, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.

20. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin,
and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and functional turf
areas located for such uses as parks and common areas, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

21. A leak detection device shall be installed for the irrigation system of landscape
areas larger than 10,000 square feet.




22. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade
trees, or a combination thereof.

23. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Businesses
Water Efficiency Program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

24. All bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian pathways (including sidewalks), and trails
shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to
provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

25. The FH-zoned portion of the site shall be preserved as permanent undisturbed
open space and shall be dedicated to the City as Sonoran Preserve prior to
preliminary site plan approval, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department and the Parks and Recreation Department.

26. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE & Zone
AE-floodway, on panels 04013C 1745 L of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
with an effective date of October 16, 2013. The following requirements shall
apply, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The Architect and Engineer are required to show the floodplain boundary
limits on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan and ensure that
impacts to the proposed facilities have been considered, following
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR
Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is not limited to, provisions in the
latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for
review and approval of floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR prior to issuance
of a Grading and Drainage permit.

d. A LOMR application shall be submitted to the Floodplain Management
section of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval prior to
issuance of vertical construction permits.

e. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved LOMR prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.




27. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
south half of Dove Valley Road, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Improvements to Dove Valley Road shall include:

a. An extension of the existing box culvert across Dove Valley Road to its
ultimate limits, including the construction of the downstream
maintenance access ramps.

b. Construction of the south half of the low flow crossing to an ‘A’ cross
section. Improvements shall consider Canyon Crossroads Master Street
Plan for Dove Valley Road Improvements.

c. Dedication and construction of ADOT traffic interchange improvements
to the eastern parcel boundary. The dedication shall consist of
applicable slope and drainage easements from existing interchange
tapering to a minimum 140-foot right-of-way to Dove Valley Road.

28. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the south side of Dove Valley Road to match the Canyon
Crossroads Master Street Plan design, and shall comply with the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

29. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way for the frontage road on the east side of
Interstate 17 from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive shall be
dedicated and constructed, or as otherwise approved by ADOT.

30. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of the
Interstate 17 frontage road, adjacent to the development, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department and the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT).

31. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for




32nd Avenue to its full width from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive.
32nd Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum Collector F cross-section, with
appropriate intersection flares to allow for future intersection connection south
of Sonoran Desert Drive or as otherwise identified and approved by the Street
Transportation Department through an accepted Traffic Impact Analysis.

32. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of 32nd Avenue between Dove Valley Road and
Sonoran Desert Drive, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

33. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the north side of Sonoran Desert Drive, adjacent to the
development, and shall comply with the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department and the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT).

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

34. A minimum of 140 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed to
extend North Valley Parkway from its current terminus to Carefree Highway.
North Valley Parkway shall be constructed to its full width in accordance with




Wash per the adopted storm water policy manual for a 100-year dry crossing of
Skunk Creek Wash.

35. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of North Valley Parkway, and shall comply with the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

36. A Master Circulation/Trails Plan for the entirety of the rezoned area shall be
submitted to the Planning and Developed Department and Street
Transportation Department for review and approval prior to submitting
Preliminary Site Plans for the first phase of development. The Master
Circulation/Trails Plan shall incorporate the following elements:

a. Skunk Creek Wash trail, Sonoran Desert Drive trail, Dove Valley Road
trail, the east-west shared-use path (Paseo del Prado), sidewalks, and
pedestrian pathways throughout the site to connect to all buildings.

b. Locations and standards for trail amenities including but not limited to
lighting, seating and drinking fountains.

37. An elevated pedestrian/bicycle bridge shall be funded and constructed, by the
developer, connecting the west bank to the east bank of Skunk Creek Wash, in
alignment with the Paseo del Prado trail, as identified in Rezoning Case (Z-59-
21 / Ordinance G-6957). Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for
the elevated pedestrian/bicycle bridge, the developer may request Certificates
of Occupancy for up to 50% of the site (based on area). No Certificates of
Occupancy shall be issued for structures located within a designated floodplain
or for a total area that exceeds 50% of the site (approximately 45 acres) prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the bridge. If the developer
wants to obtain final Certificates of Occupancy for the final 50% of the site, but
the pedestrian/bicycle bridge construction is incomplete due to lacking




easements and dedications from unaffiliated neighboring property owners
necessary for the bridge construction, the developer may be able to obtain
Certificates of Occupancy on the final 50% of the site, provided, the developer
demonstrated good faith in obtaining the necessary easements/dedications, the
bridge is fully designed, and funds necessary to construct the bridge as part of
a public project, including necessary administrative costs (estimated at 40%),
are provided to the City. Bridge design and the budget for the construction
funds are subject to approval by the Office of the City Engineer.

38. The developer shall design, fund, and install a pedestrian crosswalk with
activated warning connection across 32nd Avenue from the subject site
connecting to the east-west paseo (Paseo del Prado), as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

39. An updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be submitted by the successful
bidder of the auction parcel commensurate to the site-specific development
proposed. The TIA shall require approval prior to preliminary approval being
granted by the City.

40. Any proposed access along Sonoran Desert Drive shall located at the eastern
limits of the site and be restricted to right in, right out, left out only.

41. In accordance with City Council Resolution 22048, development shall be
responsible for addressing project impacts on Sonoran Desert Drive in the TIA
and provide a level of compensation proportionate to the identified impacts to
the corridor which may be adjusted to reflect any modifications in the mitigation,
subject to review and approval by the City.

42. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
shall be replaced and all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in
compliance with current ADA guidelines.

43. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

48. A water line easement up to 80 feet wide shall be dedicated along the west
side of the property as shown in Exhibit A in the staff memo dated October 6,
2025, or as otherwise approved by the Water Services Department and
Planning and Development Department. The exact location of the water line
crossing will be as determined by the Arizona Department of Transportation.


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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (5 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-24-25-2

C-2 ZONING:

THAT PORTION OF LAND LYING WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE
INTERSTATE 17, BLACK CANYON HIGHWAY FURTHER DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 A 1/2”
REBAR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION FROM WHICH THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 14, BEARS SOUTH 89°33'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
2645.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89°33'14" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF 313.75 FEET,
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 00°26'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 12°05'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 195.12 FEET, TO A
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 274.14 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31°24'51";
THENCE SOUTH 43°30'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 216.27 FEET, TO THE EAST
LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE SOUTH 00°15'14" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 A DISTANCE OF 1,153.27
FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 46°18'49" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 41.53 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42°10'02" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 104.65 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 47°23'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 61.09 FEET, TO A
POINT REFERENCED HEREON AS POINT “A”;
THENCE NORTH 26°07'01" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 295.47 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 05°20'08" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 82.30 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01°37'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 72.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 07°17'46" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 178.02 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00°41'52" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 175.79 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 06°16'51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 180.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 09°18'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 42.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 05°11'04" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 38.35 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 14°01'36" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 85.90 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 11°33'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 73.54 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 05°42'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 3.69 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°33'14" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 0.80 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 15°10'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 63.29 FEET;




THENCE NORTH 26°05'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 51.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 30°51'27" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 70.17 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45°42'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 110.13 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 30°27'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 177.20 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 14°49'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 91.59 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 03°54'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 95.27 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01°52'57" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 217.54 FEET, TO THE
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE NORTH 89°33'14" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF 18.89
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

TOGETHER WITH

COMMENCING AT SAID POINT “A”;
THENCE SOUTH 26°07'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 112.19 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 18°13'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 30.68 FEET, TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 12°49'36" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 47.84 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 10°39'59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 37.44 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 12°17'36" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 55.62 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 15°52'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 26.92 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 25°22'35" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 77.61 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 23°58'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 66.14 FEET, TO A
POINT REFERENCED HEREON AS POINT “B”;
THENCE NORTH 18°13'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 309.78 FEET, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.

TOGETHER WITH

COMMENCING AT SAID POINT “B”;
THENCE SOUTH 18°13'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 6.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 08°39'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 171.83 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 29°14'22" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 109.33 FEET, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 21°07'34" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 102.23 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01°47'46" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 47.60 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01°24'18" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 177.33 FEET, TO A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EAST, WHOSE RADIUS BEARS SOUTH 77°59'45"
EAST, A RADIAL DISTANCE OF 1,519.29 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY 781.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°28'06", TO A NON-TANGENT LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 17°34'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 205.40 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 26°07'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 600.51 FEET, TO THE EAST
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE NORTH 39°27'45" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 235.28 FEET, TO A




TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00
FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 672.79 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32°07'25", TO A TANGENT LINE;
THENCE NORTH 07°20'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 672.65 FEET, TO A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 450.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY 287.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36°34'42", TO A TANGENT LINE;
THENCE NORTH 29°14'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 105.06 FEET, TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
SAID COMBINED PARCELS CONTAIN 224,008 SQUARE FEET OR 5.143 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS

AND

THAT PORTION OF LAND LYING WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE
INTERSTATE 17, BLACK CANYON HIGHWAY FURTHER DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 A 1/2”
REBAR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION FROM WHICH THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 14, BEARS SOUTH 89°33'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
2645.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°15'14" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF 800.00 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89°33'14" WEST, A DISTANCE
OF 56.25 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 05°42'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 3.69 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11°33'56" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 73.54 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 14°01'36" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 85.90 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 05°11'04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 38.35 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 09°18'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 42.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 06°16'51" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 180.24 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°41'52" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 175.79 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 07°17'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 178.02 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01°37'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 72.05 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 05°20'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 82.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 26°07'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 295.47 FEET
THENCE SOUTH 47°23'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.52 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 23°51'48" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 88.99 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 12°49'36" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 35.49 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 18°13'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 309.78 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 23°58'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 6.65 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 28°52'36" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 147.17 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 21°24'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 83.36 FEET;




THENCE SOUTH 21°07'34" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 63.35 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 29°14'22" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 105.06 FEET, TO A CURVE
CONCAVE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 450.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY 287.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36°34'42";
THENCE SOUTH 07°20'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 672.65 FEET, TO A CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 672.79 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32°07'25”;
THENCE SOUTH 39°27'45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 235.28 FEET, TO THE EAST
LINE OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE SOUTH 00°15'03" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF 776.57 FEET, TO THE SOUTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14, A CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP
FLUSH;
THENCE SOUTH 89°51'50" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF 867.13 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 09°53'11" WEST, A DISTANCE
OF 4,546.80 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°33'14" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,571.83 FEET, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 4,679,662 SQUARE FEET OR 107.430 ACRES, MORE
OR LESS.

FH ZONING:

THAT PORTION OF LAND LYING WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE
INTERSTATE 17, BLACK CANYON HIGHWAY FURTHER DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 A 1/2”
REBAR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION FROM WHICH THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 14, BEARS SOUTH 89°33'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
2645.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°15'14" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF
1,989.80 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89°44'46" WEST, A DISTANCE
OF 145.89 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 26°07'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 112.19 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 18°13'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 30.68 FEET, TO A POINT
REFERENCED HEREON AS POINT “A”;
THENCE NORTH 12°49'36" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.49 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 23°51'48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 88.99 FEET;




THENCE NORTH 47°23'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.52 FEET, TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.

TOGETHER WITH

COMMENCING AT SAID POINT “A”;
THENCE SOUTH 18°13'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 309.78 FEET, TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 18°13'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 6.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 08°39'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 171.83 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 29°14'22" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 109.33 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 21°07'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 63.35 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 21°24'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 83.36 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 28°52'36" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 147.17 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 23°58'12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 6.65 FEET, TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
SAID COMBINED PARCELS CONTAIN 10,186 SQUARE FEET OR 0.234 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.




ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

North Gateway Village Planning September 11, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 6, 2025

Request From: S-1 NBCOD (Ranch or Farm Residence, North
Black Canyon Overlay District) (87.25 acres)
FH PCD NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion
Management District, Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District)
(5.08 acres)
Request To: C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate
Commercial, Height Waiver, North Black
Canyon Overlay District) (92.08 acres)
FH NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion
Management District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) (0.25 acres)
Proposal: Commercial, retail, and hospitality uses
Location: Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran
Desert Drive
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Dennis Newcombe, Gammage & Burnham,
PLC
Representative: Manjula Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity
Existing:
Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre (72.96 acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
General Plan Land Use Map Designation units per acre / Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre (34.76 acres)
Preserves / Floodplain (4.11 acres)
Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre (0.63 acres)




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial /
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per
acre / Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units
per acre (0.01 acres)
Proposed: Commercial (112.47 acres)
Dove Valley Major 0- to 42-foot south half
Road Arterial street (easement)
Street Classification Map Sonoran Major +100-foot north half
Designation Desert Drive Arterial street (easement)
32nd Avenue Local 0-foot full width street
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS & CORRIDORS;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate land uses with the greatest height and most
intense uses within village cores, centers and corridors based on village
character, land use needs, and transportation system capacity.

The site is located adjacent to the North Gateway Village Core, is within the North Black
Canyon Corridor, and is located within the Infrastructure Limit Line.

CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS & CORRIDORS;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Plan cores, centers and corridors to include a variety of
land uses: office, retail shopping, entertainment and cultural, housing, hotel and
resort, and where appropriate, some types of industry.

The proposal will provide this corridor along the I-17 freeway with a variety of land uses
including commercial, retail, and hospitality uses.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate
neighborhood retail to be easily accessible to neighborhoods.

The site is located near planned residential within the surrounding areas, and as
stipulated, this development will provide sidewalks and trails to enhance connectivity to
and around the village core.



Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
North Black Canyon Major Employment Corridor – See Background Item No. 6.

North Gateway Village Core Plan – See Background Item No. 7.

North Black Canyon Corridor Plan – See Background Item No. 8.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

North Black Canyon Overlay District – See Background Item No. 9.

Monarch Butterfly Pledge – See Background Item No. 10.

Shade Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 11.

Complete Streets Design Guidelines – See Background Item No. 12.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 13.

Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 14.

Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 15.

Phoenix Climate Action Plan – See Background Item No. 16.

Conservation Measures for New Development – See Background Item No. 17.



Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant land S-1 NBCOD, FH PCD NBCOD
North Vacant land C-2 NBCOD
North (across Dove
Utility enclosure, wash PUD NBCOD, FH PCD NBCOD
Valley Road)
C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD,
East Vacant land and wash PCD NBCOD (Approved S-1 PCD
NBCOD), FH PCD NBCOD
South (across PCD NBCOD (Approved S-1 PCD
Vacant land
Sonoran Desert Drive) NBCOD)
Vacant land
West (across I-17
(proposed Halo Vista PUD
freeway)
development)




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, North Black
Canyon Overlay District) Development Standards

Standards Requirements Proposed

Gross Acreage - 92.33 acres
Maximum Lot Coverage 50% 16.3% (Met)



Maximum Building Height 4 stories and 56 feet Retail Shops: 1-story
and 22 feet – 27 feet,
4 inches (Met)
Hotel: 4-story (Met)
Fitness: 2-story (Met)
Minimum Building Setbacks
Adjacent to Streets for Average 25 feet; Minimum 20 32nd Avenue:
structures not exceeding feet permitted for up to 50% Approx. 71 feet –
2 stories or 30 feet of structure, including Approx. 135 feet
projections (Met)
Sonoran Desert
Drive: Approx. 254
feet (Met)
I-17 Frontage Road:
Approx. 41 feet –
Approx. 144 feet
(Met)
Adjacent to Streets for Average 30 feet; Minimum 20 32nd Avenue:
structures exceeding feet permitted for up to 50% Approx. 98 feet –
2 stories or 30 feet of structure, including Approx. 150 feet
projections (Met)
I-17 Frontage Road:
Approx. 128 feet
(Met)
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
Adjacent to Streets for Average 25 feet; Minimum 20 32nd Avenue:
structures not exceeding feet permitted for up to 50% Approx. 34 feet –
2 stories or 30 feet of the frontage Approx. 150 feet
(Met)
I-17 Frontage Road:
Approx. 30 feet –
Approx. 45 feet (Met)




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

Adjacent to Streets for Average 30 feet; Minimum 20 32nd Avenue: 30 feet
structures exceeding feet permitted for up to 50% (Met)
2 stories or 30 feet of the frontage
I-17 Frontage Road:
Approx. 50 feet –
Approx. 100 feet
(Met)
Minimum Parking 3,445 spaces 3,919 spaces (Met)



Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 92.33 acres located at the northeast corner of Interstate
17 and Sonoran Desert Drive from 87.25 acres of S-1 NBCOD (Ranch or Farm
Residence, North Black Canyon Overlay District) and 5.08 acres of FH PCD
NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion Management District, Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to 92.08 acres of C-2 HGT/WVR
NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, North Black Canyon Overlay
District) and 0.25 acres of FH NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion Management
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to allow commercial, retail, and
hospitality uses.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The General Plan Land Use Map designations for the subject site are 72.96
acres of Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, 34.76
acres of Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre, 4.11 acres of Preserves / Floodplain, 0.63 acres of
Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre, and 0.01 acres of
Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
/ Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.

The proposal for C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD zoning is inconsistent with the General
Plan Land Use Map; thus, a General Plan Amendment is required. The
companion General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA-NG-1-25-2) is proposing
to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designations to Commercial. The
request for C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD zoning is consistent with the proposed
General Plan Land Use Map designation.

To the north of the subject site is designated as Commercial / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre and Preserves / Mixed Use / Commercial / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre / Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. To the
east of the subject site is designated as Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Preserves /



Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

Floodplain. To the south of the subject site is designated as Parks/Open Space /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5
dwelling units per acre / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, and
Preserves / Floodplain. To the west of the subject site is the I-17 freeway and
beyond the freeway the designation is Commercial / Commerce/Business Park.




Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department




Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. To the north of the subject
site is vacant land zoned
C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate
Commercial, North Black
Canyon Overlay District).
To the north, across Dove
Valley Road, is a utility
enclosure and wash, zoned
PUD NBCOD (Planned
Unit Development, North
Black Canyon Overlay
District) and FH PCD
NBCOD (Flood Hazard and
Erosion Management
District, Planned
Community District, North
Black Canyon Overlay Zoning Sketch Map
District). To the east is Source: Planning and Development Department
vacant land and a wash,
zoned C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Height
Waiver, Density Waiver, North Black Canyon Overlay District), PCD NBCOD
(Approved S-1 PCD NBCOD) (Planned Community District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District, Approved Ranch or Farm Residence, Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District), and FH PCD NBCOD. To the
south, across Sonoran Desert Drive, is vacant land, zoned PCD NBCOD
(Approved S-1 PCD NBCOD). To the west, across the I-17 freeway, is vacant
land, zoned PUD, for the proposed Halo Vista development.

PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The site plan, attached as an exhibit, proposes a commercial center with a
fitness center, four hotels, and retail and restaurant pads. Retention areas are
proposed throughout the site, with some larger retention areas proposed along
32nd Avenue and along the I-17 freeway. Surface parking areas are proposed
throughout the site, with a total of 3,919 parking spaces provided. Seven
driveways are proposed for vehicular access along 32nd Avenue and five
driveways are proposed from the I-17 frontage road.

Staff recommends enhanced landscape planting standards to enhance the tree
plantings and vegetative ground coverage within retention areas. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 4.

A multi-use trail (MUT) is designated along the south side of Dove Valley Road
and along the west side of Skunk Creek Wash. Easements must be dedicated




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

and the MUTs must be constructed within the easements. This is addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9.

To enhance landscape plantings along the Skunk Creek Wash MUT, and to be
consistent with development along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash, staff
recommends that a minimum 10-foot landscape setback be provided along the
west side of the MUT adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash, landscaped with enhanced
planting standards. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.

5. Elevations
The building elevations and renderings, attached as an exhibit, proposes one-
story retail shop buildings, four-story hotels, and a two-story fitness center. Staff
does not recommend general conformance to the elevations as they may change
depending on the successful bidder of the auction. Staff recommends that all
building elevations contain architectural embellishments and detailing and that
they contain desert-tone colors. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 1 and 2.

PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITATIVES
6. North Black Canyon Major Employment Corridor
The subject site is located
within the City designated
North Black Canyon
employment corridor, which
is generally bounded by
Carefree Highway to the
north, the 19th Avenue
alignment to the east, Happy
Valley Road to the south, and
the I-17 freeway to the west.
The purpose of employment
centers and corridors are to
encourage and promote a
concentration of employment
uses within strategic areas.
The North Black Canyon
employment corridor is
characterized by a mix of
commercial, commerce park,
and residential uses of higher Major Employment Centers and Corridors Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
intensity within and nearby
the Village Core. The proposal will add to the mix of commercial uses and
associated employment within the employment corridor.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

7. North Gateway Village Core Plan
The subject site is located adjacent to the North Gateway Village Core and is
within the North Gateway Village Core Plan. The Phoenix City Council adopted
the North Gateway Village Core Plan in 2008 to provide guidance in creating a
high-intensity, urban center with Skunk Creek Wash and Bronco Butte as major
natural amenities.

The North Gateway Village
Core Plan envisioned the
subject site as a future 110-
acre district park. The
proposal is not consistent
with the North Gateway
Village Core Plan;
however, the Parks and
Recreation Department has
confirmed that the district
park is planned for another
location.

In order to promote the
goals, policies, and
recommendations of the
North Gateway Village
Core Plan, including
pedestrian-oriented
development and
enhanced pedestrian
connectivity, staff
recommends stipulations
regarding public plazas, an
enhanced north-south
pedestrian pathway,
surface parking setback,
multi-use trails, a shared-
use path, pedestrian
crossings, bicycle parking,
bicycle repair stations, North Gateway Village Core Plan
enhanced shading, Conceptual Land Use Map
sidewalks, a master Source: Planning and Development Department
circulation/trails plan, a pedestrian/bicycle bridge, and pedestrian crosswalk with
activated warning. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5 through 9, 11, 13,
14, 24, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 35 through 38.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

8. North Black Canyon Corridor Plan
The subject site is within the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan. The Phoenix
within a concentrated area along the Interstate 17 corridor, to discourage
leapfrog development, and to preserve the natural desert character of the area.
In an effort to guide growth and development within a concentrated area and
discourage leapfrog development, the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan
established the Infrastructure Limit Line and Infrastructure Phasing Overlay. The
proposal is consistent with the following goals from the plan:

• Goal 2: Achieve a balance
between employment and
housing.

The proposal will add to the
variety of employment
opportunities at the
commercial businesses that
would be located on the
subject site.

• Goal 3: Concentrate growth
within a defined corridor.

The subject site is located
within the Infrastructure
Limit Line, which is the
defined corridor within the
North Black Canyon North Black Canyon Corridor Plan
Corridor Plan where growth Infrastructure Limit Line and Phasing Overlay Map
was intended to be Source: Planning and Development Department
concentrated.

9. North Black Canyon Overlay District
The subject site is within the North Black Canyon Overlay District (NBCOD). The
concepts of the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan. The NBCOD ensures
development is compatible with the desert environment by providing
comprehensive design guidelines. In order enforce the NBCOD guidelines
regarding developing buildings with a desert color palette, staff recommends that
the color and material palette comply with the NBCOD, with specific regard to
colors being muted and blend with, rather than contrast strongly, with the
surrounding desert environment. Additionally, to maintain the natural desert
character, staff recommends that surface retention areas be natural and organic
in shape. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3.



Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

10. Monarch Butterfly Pledge
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation’s
Mayor’s Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support
the monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is
a major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of
milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers,
but they breed only where milkweeds are found. In order to support the monarch
butterfly population, Stipulation No. 15 addresses the planting of milkweed
shrubs, or other native nectar plant species, on the subject site.

11. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan.
The Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the
City to improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the
urban heat island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent
health complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix
Plan provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and
developing shade stipulations in rezoning cases. Staff recommends Stipulation
Nos. 4, 5.b, 5.c, 6.a.(1), 9.b, 10, 11.c.(1), 22, 24, 28, 32, 33, and 35 to enhance
tree plantings and shade.

12. Complete Streets Design Guidelines
In 2018, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Design
Guidelines. The design guidelines are intended to promote improvements that
provide an accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all
modes, such as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. Staff recommends
multi-use trails, a shared-use path, visually contrasting pavement treatments at
pedestrian crossings, enhanced streetscape plantings and shade, and detached
sidewalks, to support these design guidelines and to enhance the streetscape.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 28, 32, 33, and 35.

13. 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. Staff recommends that bicycle parking be provided in accordance
with the City’s Walkable Urban (WU) Code, installed per the requirements in the
WU Code and located near building entrances and open space areas.
Additionally, two public bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) will be provided
and maintained internal to the site near a paseo, pedestrian walkway, or public
plaza, and one along the multi-use trail adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash, in areas
of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 13 and 14.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

14. 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 applicant’s submittal materials indicate that recycling
receptacles will be provided, as applicable, by the future tenants/users.

15. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile
manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within
the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a
future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and
outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs
of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public
adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily
charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to
provide EV charging infrastructure. Staff recommends a minimum of 30 parking
spaces include EV Capable infrastructure. Additionally, staff recommends a
minimum of 10 percent of the provided bicycle parking spaces include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities. This is addressed
in Stipulation Nos. 16 and 17.

16. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan.
The Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse
gas emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and
community activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This
plan contains policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation,
waste management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2
(Water), Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix
Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative
Stormwater Management to benefit the environment, promote water
conservation, reduce urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional
green spaces. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 18, which requires a minimum
of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) techniques for stormwater
management to be implemented, in order to address this goal.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

17. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s
Five Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to “Build the
Sustainable Desert City”. The Conservation Measures for New Development
policy includes direction to develop standard stipulations for all rezoning cases
that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific categories.
Staff recommends Stipulation Nos. 18 through 23 to address this goal, which
address the following:
• A minimum of two GSI elements for stormwater management to be
implemented.
• Only utilize landscape materials listed in Appendix A of the North Black
Canyon Overlay District (Section 654 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance).
• Natural turf to only be utilized in required retention areas and functional
turf areas.
• A leak detection device to be installed for the irrigation system of
landscape areas larger than 10,000 square feet.
• A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas to be shaded by
structures or shade trees.
• Documentation to be provided that demonstrates a commitment to
participate in the City of Phoenix Businesses Water Efficiency Program for
a minimum of 15 years.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
18. At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any letters of
opposition or support.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
19. Parks and Recreation Department
The Parks and Recreation Department requested that the FH-zoned portion of
the site (Skunk Creek Wash) be dedicated to the City as Sonoran Preserve per
the 1998 Sonoran Preserve Master Plan. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 25.

20. Floodplain Management
The Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer reviewed
the proposed changes to the FH zoning boundary and commented that the
subject parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE & Zone
AE-floodway, on panels 04013C 1745 L of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
with an effective date of October 16, 2013. The Architect and Engineer is
required to show the floodplain boundary limits on the Site Plan and Grading and
Drainage Plan and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities have been
considered, following the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations
(44 CFR Paragraph 60.3), including, but not limited to, provisions in the latest



Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code. A copy of the
Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of the Street Transportation Department for review and
approval of Floodplain requirements. FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR is
required prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit. A LOMR application
must be submitted to Floodplain Management prior to issuance of vertical
construction permits. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 26.

21. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation Department requested the following:
• Dedication and construction for the south half of Dove Valley Road, with
box culvert, low flow crossing, and ADOT traffic interchange
improvements.
• Detached sidewalks for the south side of Dove Valley Road, both sides of
North Valley Parkway, both sides of 32nd Avenue, and the north side of
Sonoran Desert Drive.
• Dedication and construction of the frontage road on the east side of
Interstate 17 from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive.
• Dedication and construction of North Valley Parkway to be extended from
its current terminus to Carefree Highway, to its full width, including a
bridge over Skunk Creek Wash.
• Dedication and construction of 32nd Avenue to its full width from Dove
Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive.
• Multi-use trail easement dedication and construction along the western
banks of Skunk Creek Wash and the south side of Dove Valley Road.
• Easement dedication and construction of the Paseo del Prado.
• A Master Circulation/Trails Plan for the entirety of the rezoning area to be
submitted to the Planning and Development Department and the Street
Transportation Department for review and approval, incorporating certain
elements.
• That an elevated pedestrian and bicycle bridge be funded and constructed
connecting the west bank to the east bank of Skunk Creek Wash, in
alignment with the Paseo del Prado.
• That the developer design, fund and install a pedestrian crosswalk with
activated warning connection across 32nd Avenue from the subject site
and in alignment with Paseo del Prado.
• That an updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be submitted by the
successful bidder of the auction parcel commensurate to the site-specific
development proposed.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

• That any proposed access along Sonoran Desert Drive be located at the
eastern limits of the site and be restricted to right in, right out, left out only.
• That the development be responsible for addressing project impacts on
Sonoran Desert Drive in the TIA, in accordance with Resolution 22048.
• That all unused driveways be replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter, that
any broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all
streets be replaced and that all off-site improvements be upgraded to be in
compliance with current ADA guidelines.
• That all streets within and adjacent to the development be constructed
with all required elements and comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8, 9, 11, 27, 28, 29, and 31.

22. Arizona Department of Transportation
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) requested a sidewalk be
provided along the I-17 frontage road. ADOT commented that the desired
detached sidewalk width would be eight feet with a 10-foot-wide landscape strip
detachment. Staff recommends a minimum five-foot-wide sidewalk be provided
along the I-17 frontage road, as approved or modified by ADOT, which allows
flexibility in how it is designed based on future ADOT approval. This is addressed
in Stipulation No. 30.

OTHER
23. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted.
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based
upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this
determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event
archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 44
through 46.

24. 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. Staff recommends a stipulation to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 47.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

25. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.

Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation.

2. The proposal will add to the variety of land uses adjacent to the North Gateway
Village Core and within the North Black Canyon Corridor.

3. As stipulated, the proposal supports efforts from various plans, overlays, and
initiatives, including the North Gateway Village Core Plan, the North Black
Canyon Corridor Plan, the North Black Canyon Overlay District, the Monarch
Butterfly Pledge initiative, the Shade Phoenix Plan, the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles policy, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan, the Phoenix Climate Action Plan, and the
Conservation Measures for New Development policy.

Stipulations

1. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size
and location, and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. Colors shall be muted and blend, rather than contrast strongly, with the
surrounding desert environment, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. All surface retention areas shall be natural and organic in shape, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

4. Retention areas shall be planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings, and planted for every 400 square
feet of retention area evenly distributed throughout the retention areas.

b. A minimum of five, 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs,
accents, and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout
the landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025


5. A minimum of 8,000 square feet in aggregate shall be provided for pedestrian
plazas, with no one plaza being less than 2,000 square feet, and shall be
maintained by the property owner as a gathering place for the public and for
events, adhering to the following standards, and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

a. The plazas shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not
be restricted during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

b. The plazas shall include shaded seating for public use and a minimum
of two additional amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game
area, interactive art feature, splash pad, performance stage, fire pit, or
other similar amenities.

c. A minimum of 50% of the plaza edges shall be lined with buildings or a
permanent shade structure. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor
building frontages facing the plaza, measured as the area between 3
and 8 feet above grade for the width of the facade, shall be glazing,
consisting of clear windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the
visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either
side of the window.

6. A minimum 6-foot-wide public north-south pedestrian pathway shall be
provided near the center of the site, west of 32nd Avenue, for a minimum of the
north half of the site and connecting to Dove Valley Road, and shall comply
with the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian
pathway is a minimum of 16 feet wide:

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum
2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage,
except where drive aisles cross the pathway where necessary.
Structural shade elements may be used, and footers may be
placed within the landscape strip along the pathway.

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75% of the ground floor frontages facing the




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8
feet above grade for the width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as
specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the
window.

b. The pathway shall connect with the public plazas.

c. The pathway can either continue to the south portion of the site, as
specified above, or connect to the sidewalk on the west side of 32nd
Avenue.

7. Any surface parking adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and 32nd Avenue shall be
setback a minimum of 50 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Dove Valley Road between the shared-use path (SUP) on the
east side of Skunk Creek Wash and the multi-use trail (MUT) on the west side
of Skunk Creek Wash, and a minimum 10-foot-wide MUT shall be constructed
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

9. A 25-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
west bank of Skunk Creek Wash aligned with the limits of development, west of
the Floodway Zone AE boundary, and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail
(MUT) shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail, and shall comply with the following, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The MUT on the west side of Skunk Creek Wash shall connect Dove
Valley Road and Sonoran Desert Drive.

b. A minimum of 75% of the MUT shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping, or a combination of the two.

c. Trail stations shall be provided along the trail, generally conforming to
the site plan date stamped August 26, 2025. The trail stations shall
include amenities such as outdoor seating, shade structures, water
stations, bike fix it station, art features, or other similar amenities.

10. A minimum landscape setback of 10 feet shall be provided along the west side
of the Skunk Creek Wash multi-use trail, planted to the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, to provide a
minimum of 75% shade along the multi-use trail.

b. A minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs,
accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a maximum
height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas
to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.

11. A minimum 25-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be
dedicated, and a minimum 10-foot-wide east-west shared-use path (SUP) shall
be constructed west of 32nd Avenue, in alignment with the Paseo Del Prado
trail/bridge and connecting to the future pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the
Interstate 17 freeway, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The paseo shall connect the sidewalk along the west side of 32nd
Avenue to the sidewalk along the east side of the I-17 frontage road.

b. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building
placement creates an alignment and synergy for the paseo. This can
be achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor
seating, and points of architectural interest along the paseo.

c. The paseo shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two:

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum
2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage,
except where drive aisles cross the pathway where necessary.
Structural shade elements may be used, and footers may be
placed within the landscape strip along the paseo.

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75% of the ground floor frontages facing the
pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8
feet above grade for the width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as
specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the
window.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

12. Where pedestrian pathways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

13. Bicycle parking shall be provided per the requirements of Section 1307.H.6 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle parking shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and open
space areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

14. Two public bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided and
maintained: one along the multi-use trail adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and
one internal to the site near a paseo, pedestrian walkway, or public plaza. The
bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided in areas of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable.
The repair station shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools
affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station
or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

15. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

16. A minimum of 10% of the provided bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

17. A minimum of 30 of the required vehicle parking spaces shall include EV
Capable infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. Only landscape materials listed in Appendix A of the North Black Canyon
Overlay District (Section 654 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance) shall be
utilized, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025


20. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin,
and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and functional turf
areas located for such uses as parks and common areas, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

21. A leak detection device shall be installed for the irrigation system of landscape
areas larger than 10,000 square feet.

22. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade
trees, or a combination thereof.

23. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Businesses
Water Efficiency Program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

24. All bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian pathways (including sidewalks), and trails
shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to
provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

25. The FH-zoned portion of the site shall be preserved as permanent undisturbed
open space and shall be dedicated to the City as Sonoran Preserve prior to
preliminary site plan approval, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department and the Parks and Recreation Department.

26. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE & Zone
AE-floodway, on panels 04013C 1745 L of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
with an effective date of October 16, 2013. The following requirements shall
apply, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The Architect and Engineer are required to show the floodplain
boundary limits on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan and
ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities have been considered,
following National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44
CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is not limited to, provisions in
the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City
Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for
review and approval of floodplain requirements.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025


c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR prior to
issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

d. A LOMR application shall be submitted to the Floodplain Management
section of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval prior
to issuance of vertical construction permits.

e. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved LOMR prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.

27. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
south half of Dove Valley Road, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Improvements to Dove Valley Road shall include:

a. An extension of the existing box culvert across Dove Valley Road to its
ultimate limits, including the construction of the downstream
maintenance access ramps.

b. Construction of the south half of the low flow crossing to an ‘A’ cross
section. Improvements shall consider Canyon Crossroads Master Street
Plan for Dove Valley Road Improvements.

c. Dedication and construction of ADOT traffic interchange improvements
to the eastern parcel boundary. The dedication shall consist of
applicable slope and drainage easements from existing interchange
tapering to a minimum 140-foot right-of-way to Dove Valley Road.

28. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the south side of Dove Valley Road to match the Canyon
Crossroads Master Street Plan design, and shall comply with the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025


29. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way for the frontage road on the east side of
Interstate 17 from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive shall be
dedicated and constructed, or as otherwise approved by ADOT.

30. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of the
Interstate 17 frontage road, adjacent to the development, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department and the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT).

31. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for
32nd Avenue to its full width from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive.
32nd Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum Collector F cross-section, with
appropriate intersection flares to allow for future intersection connection south
of Sonoran Desert Drive or as otherwise identified and approved by the Street
Transportation Department through an accepted Traffic Impact Analysis.

32. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of 32nd Avenue between Dove Valley Road and
Sonoran Desert Drive, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

33. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the north side of Sonoran Desert Drive, adjacent to the
development, and shall comply with the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department and the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT).

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025


b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

34. A minimum of 140 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed to
extend North Valley Parkway from its current terminus to Carefree Highway.
North Valley Parkway shall be constructed to its full width in accordance with
Wash per the adopted storm water policy manual for a 100-year dry crossing of
Skunk Creek Wash.

35. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of North Valley Parkway, and shall comply with the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

36. A Master Circulation/Trails Plan for the entirety of the rezoned area shall be
submitted to the Planning and Developed Department and Street
Transportation Department for review and approval prior to submitting
Preliminary Site Plans for the first phase of development. The Master
Circulation/Trails Plan shall incorporate the following elements:

a. Skunk Creek Wash trail, Sonoran Desert Drive trail, Dove Valley Road
trail, the east-west shared-use path (Paseo del Prado), sidewalks, and
pedestrian pathways throughout the site to connect to all buildings.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

b. Locations and standards for trail amenities including but not limited to
lighting, seating and drinking fountains.

37. An elevated pedestrian/bicycle bridge shall be funded and constructed
connecting the West Bank to the East Bank of Skunk Creek Wash, in alignment
with Paseo De Prado trail, as identified in Rezoning Case (Z-59-21 / Ordinance
G-6957). No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for an area that exceeds
50% of the site (approximately 45 acres) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Completion for the bridge.

38. The developer shall design, fund, and install a pedestrian crosswalk with
activated warning connection across 32nd Avenue from the subject site
connecting to the east-west paseo (Paseo del Prado), as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

39. An updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be submitted by the successful
bidder of the auction parcel commensurate to the site-specific development
proposed. The TIA shall require approval prior to preliminary approval being
granted by the City.

40. Any proposed access along Sonoran Desert Drive shall located at the eastern
limits of the site and be restricted to right in, right out, left out only.

41. In accordance with City Council Resolution 22048, development shall be
responsible for addressing project impacts on Sonoran Desert Drive in the TIA
and provide a level of compensation proportionate to the identified impacts to
the corridor which may be adjusted to reflect any modifications in the mitigation,
subject to review and approval by the City.

42. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
shall be replaced and all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in
compliance with current ADA guidelines.

43. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

44. 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.




Staff Report: Z-24-25-2
September 8, 2025

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Writer
Adrian Zambrano
September 8, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning Sketch Map
Aerial Sketch Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped August 26, 2025 (2 pages)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped March 19, 2025 (3 pages)
Renderings date stamped March 19, 2025




C-2 HGT/WVR C-2 HGT/WVR R-3
PUD* PUD* PCD* PCD*
DOVE VALLEY RD Z-46-17 Z-4-11 Z-159-01 DNS/WVR* PCD*
Z-91-C-99 Z-159-01 Z-129-99
Z-4-11
Z-SP-7-05
PUD
FH PCD C-2 HGT/WVR C-2 M-R*
Z-78-05 C-2 M-R
§
¨
¦ Z-21-22
C-2* PCD* Z-33-18
NBCOD*
R-3A PCD*
Z-159-01 NBCOD*
NBCOD*
Z-78-05

Z-43-99
Z-SP-7-05
Z-125-06 C-2 M-R* Z-56-19
FH PCD* Z-83-18
Z-29-02 C-2*
Z-75-21

C-2
HGT/WVR
FH NBCOD*
Z-27-24 DNS/WVR




CP/GCP M-R PCD*
NBCOD*
Z-27-24 CP/GCP M-R
S-1* C-2
NBCOD*
Z-55-19

Z-43-99
ANX 149 HGT/WVR C-2
DNS/WVR
NBCOD* HGT/WVR
Z-27-24 DNS/WVR*
PUD* Z-74-21
Z-83-18


Z-37-20
FH PCD* C-2/CP M-R


C-2 HGT/WVR
Z-29-02 PCD*
C-2 NBCOD* C-2 Z-43-99

Z-30-21
Z-59-21 PCD*
M-R*
Z-43-99


DNS/WVR*
Z-20-17
North Black Canyon

C-2 M-R PCD
Corridor Plan and
Overlay District
Z-43-99

NBCOD*
R-3A
NBCOD*
Z-66-21 R-4* C-2/CP M-R PCD*
Z-28-21 Z-43-99



C-2*
R-3*
Z-28-21
PCD* Z-43-99
Z-28-21

v
w303
S-1 S-1 PCD*
PCD*
SONORAN DESERT DR
C-2/C-P/M-R
PCD* R-3A*
ANX 149 §
¨
¦
17 Z-34-01
Z-34-01
PCD*
Z-34-01
Z-34-01
Z-6-12




¯ 51ST AVE



PYRAMID PEAK PKY
Miles 19TH AVE
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 I-17

NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE BLVD


Z-24-25-2

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Gammage & Burnham, PLC FROM: S-1 NBCOD ( 87.25 ac.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO: Z-24-25-2 4/14/2025
REVISION DATES:
FH PCD NBCOD ( 5.08 ac.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET 8/19/2025
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD ( 92.08 ac.)
QS 55-21 Q-6 FH NBCOD ( 0.25 ac.)
92.33 Acres QS 56-21 R-6
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 NBCOD, FH PCD NBCOD 87, N/A N/A, N/A
C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD, FH NBCOD 1335, N/A 1602, N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 253
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-24-25 - REV2.aprx
C-2 HGT/WVR C-2 HGT/WVR R-3
PUD* PUD* PCD* PCD*
DOVE VALLEY RD Z-46-17 Z-4-11 Z-159-01 DNS/WVR* PCD*
Z-91-C-99 Z-159-01 Z-129-99
Z-4-11
Z-SP-7-05
PUD
FH PCD C-2 HGT/WVR C-2 M-R*
Z-78-05 C-2 M-R
§
¨
¦ Z-21-22
C-2* PCD* Z-33-18
NBCOD*
R-3A PCD*
Z-159-01 NBCOD*
NBCOD*
Z-78-05

Z-43-99
Z-SP-7-05
Z-125-06 C-2 M-R* Z-56-19
FH PCD* Z-83-18
Z-29-02 C-2*
Z-75-21

C-2
HGT/WVR
FH NBCOD*
Z-27-24 DNS/WVR




CP/GCP M-R PCD*
NBCOD*
Z-27-24 CP/GCP M-R
S-1* C-2
NBCOD*
Z-55-19

Z-43-99
ANX 149 HGT/WVR C-2
DNS/WVR
NBCOD* HGT/WVR
Z-27-24 DNS/WVR*
PUD* Z-74-21
Z-83-18


Z-37-20
FH PCD* C-2/CP M-R


C-2 HGT/WVR
Z-29-02 PCD*
C-2 NBCOD* C-2 Z-43-99

Z-30-21
Z-59-21 PCD*
M-R*
Z-43-99


DNS/WVR*
Z-20-17
North Black Canyon

C-2 M-R PCD
Corridor Plan and
Overlay District
Z-43-99

NBCOD*
R-3A
NBCOD*
Z-66-21 R-4* C-2/CP M-R PCD*
Z-28-21 Z-43-99



C-2*
R-3*
Z-28-21
PCD* Z-43-99
Z-28-21

v
w303
S-1 S-1 PCD*
PCD*
SONORAN DESERT DR
C-2/C-P/M-R
PCD* R-3A*
ANX 149 §
¨
¦
17 Z-34-01
Z-34-01
PCD*
Z-34-01
Z-34-01
Z-6-12




¯ 51ST AVE



PYRAMID PEAK PKY
Miles 19TH AVE
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 I-17

NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE BLVD


Z-24-25-2

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Gammage & Burnham, PLC FROM: S-1 NBCOD ( 87.25 ac.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO: Z-24-25-2 4/14/2025
REVISION DATES:
FH PCD NBCOD ( 5.08 ac.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET 8/19/2025
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD ( 92.08 ac.)
QS 55-21 Q-6 FH NBCOD ( 0.25 ac.)
92.33 Acres QS 56-21 R-6
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 NBCOD, FH PCD NBCOD 87, N/A N/A, N/A
C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD, FH NBCOD 1335, N/A 1602, N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 254
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-24-25 - REV2.aprx
CITY OF PHOENIX
AUG 26 2025
Planning & Development
Department
SITE PLAN
N
0 100' 200' 400'
SCALE: 1" = 200'
(I-17)
N HYW
Existing Zoning: C-2 NBCOD, S-1 NBCOD, FH PCD NBCOD
CANYO Proposed Zoning: C-2 NBCOD
BLACK
LOOP
N03°59'49"W 505.72' (26.6 Gross Acres - Not a Part, prior Case Z-125-06-2)
17 30' AT&T


30' OVRH
UTILITY
ESMT.


.
839.26'
APN#: ASLD
.65'
N06°43'19"W P4
40"E 269


ESMT. 4,000 SF Overlays/Special Planning Districts: North Black Canyon
N80°42' 0


P8
P9
10,800 SF
6,000 SF
Corridor Plan and Overlay District
DOVE VALLEY O
ROAD




60'
180' 100'
.86' 80' Planned Hospitality* Net Site Area: 601,315 S.F. (13.8 AC.)
1'38"W
N15°1
N00°26'46"W 136.44'
Planned Fitness Net Site Area: 438,848 S.F. (10.1 AC.)
Planned Commercial Net Site Area: 2,680,498 S.F. (61.5 AC.)
RH.
T 30' OV Y
30' AT&T. UTILIT .
ESM
ESMT 100' Total Net Planned Development Area: 3,720,661 S.F. (85.4 AC.)
P3
Open Space Net Site Area: 1,363,084 S.F. (31.3 AC.)
80' 14,000 SF
2'
New 32nd Avenue Future ROW: 430,425 S.F. (9.9 AC.)
650.7 RI, RO
1'38"W
N15°1 Total Site Area: 5,514,170 S.F. (126.6 AC.)
N89°33'14"E 1243.95'




FUTURE PAD
(0.8 AC.) P2
4,000 SF
Gross Site Area: 5,668,808 S.F. (130.14 AC.)
T. H.
P. ESM
30' OVR
90' PRO ER
T UTILITY
30' AT&
COP WAT
ER
ESMT.
ESMT. HOSP
ITALITY
13.8 AC
90' ESMT
.)
Total Building Area (1st Floor): 606,568 S.F.
& SEW (INCL. 100'
FUTURE PAD NEW
N09°35'
51"W 1939
.65' (1.2 AC.) ROW
Coverage: 606,568 S.F./3,720,661 S.F. = 16.3%
(Based on Net Planned Development Area)
25'
SB
8'
PUE
Parking Required
80'
Tenant 1 100,000 S.F.@4/1,000 S.F. 400 Spaces
NEW
STREET
ROW
32ND AVENUE
NE
90' PROP. ESMT. 0
100'
10.1 AC
Tenant 2 70,000 S.F.@4/1,000 S.F. 280 Spaces
E
NEW
COP WATER
WF
(INCL. ESMT.) S R
TREET
& SEWER O
ROW
8' 8'
TRAIL
PASEO
DEL PRADO
30' PUE
MUT UT UR
Tenant 3 80,000 S.F.@4/1,000 S.F. 320 Spaces
S89°51'50"W 296.89'




ESMT.
STATION ES Tenant 4 80,000 S.F.@4/1,000 S.F. 320 Spaces
TR EET
TRAIL
STATION (DRIVE THRUS - Ex. 60% Service) 164 Spaces
100' ROW
EXIST. FH
FEMA ZONE
AE SFHA EXIST. S-1 (3 2ND
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY P2,P4,P7,P12,P14
TO PROP. FH
TO PROP. C-2
A 20,500 S.F.x40%=8,200 S.F.@1/50 S.F. :
80'
FLOODPLAIN
VEN
W
NE ET
RE
ST W
RO MULTI-USE ZONING ZONING 100'
U
NEW
TRAIL
E) (RETAIL - 1/300 SF.) 33 Spaces
ROW
MULTI-USE
SKUNK CREEK TRAIL P1,P13 = 10,000 SF.
TRAIL WASH
STATION OPEN SPACE (REST - Ex. 40% Service @1/50 SF. ) 360 Spaces
31.3 AC S00°15'14"E 2644.41'
S00°15'14"E 2644.41'
P15-P19 = 18,000 SF.
96'
NEW S00°15'03"E 2645.54'
STREET
ROW
STATE LAND MULTI-USE
TRAIL SHOPS 451 Spaces
LINE
(50% Retail @1/300 S.F.+50% Rest. (Ex.40% Serv.) @1/50):
P3,P5-P6,P8-P11 = 58,800 SF.
HOSPITALITY* 544 Spaces
FEMA ZONE AE
SFHA FLOODWAY
(1 space/1 Key) - 4 Hotels = 544 Keys
FITNESS (1/150 SF.) 572 Spaces
42,934 SF (First Floor) = 85,868 SF
Total Parking Required: 3,445 Spaces
SKUNK CREEK EAST
MULTI-USE PATH SHARED-USE TRAIL
TRAIL (BY OTHERS) Parking Provided: 3,919 Spaces
Max. Building Height: 30'-0" to 56'-0" (height waiver)
SKUNK CREEK EAST GEN. NOTES:
PATH SHARED-USE TRAIL * Optional Residential (Multifamily): R-3
(BY OTHERS)
Density and PRD Development Standards
- TYP. Parking Spaces 9'-6"x18' with 26' Drive Min.
DATE SUBMISSION
A. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THIS SITE WILL CONFORM WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. O. THE DISPOSAL OF ALL WASTE MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH TITLE 9, CHAPTER 9, ARTICLES 18 AND 4 OF 09-06-2024 PRE-APPLICATION SITE PLAN
B. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX WATER SERVICES AREA AND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS AS ADOPTED BY THE ARIZONA HEALTH DEPARTMENT. Developer Architect Attorney
HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY. P. THE AVERAGE NOISE LEVEL, MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE, SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTY-FIVE dB (1 dn)
CAREFREE HWY. C. ALL NEW OR RELOCATED UTILITIES WILL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. WHEN MEASURED ON AN "A WEIGHTED" SOUND LEVEL METER AND ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES OF THE Vestar Butler Design Group Gammage & Burnham
D. STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURED BACK 10'-0" FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 2415 E. Camelback Rd. St. #100 5013 E. Washington St. #100 40 N. Central Ave. 20th Floor
20'-0" ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON EACH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES ENTRANCES WILL BE Q. EXPLOSIVE OF HAZARDOUS PROCESSES (IF APPLICABLE): CERTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY PHOENIX
MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'-0". FIRE DEPARTMENT PREVENTION BUREAU THAT ALL MANUFACTURING, STORAGE AND WASTE PROCESSES ON Phoenix, AZ. 85016 Phoenix, Arizona 85034 Phoenix, AZ. 85004
E. STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURING 33' x 33' ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES WILL
BE MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'-0". R.
THE SITE SHALL MEET SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU.
ALL NEW SANITARY SEWER LINES WITHIN THE SITE SHALL BE PRIVATE PLUMBING LINES SUBJECT TO THE
Contact: Kean Thomas Contact: David Reuterman Contact: Manjula M. Vaz, Attorney
27TH DR.

INTERSTATE
ARIZONA
F. ANY LIGHTING WILL BE PLACED SO AS TO DIRECT THE LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PHOENIX PLUMBING CODE OR THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (ADEQ) AQUIFER Ph: (602) 866-0900 Ph: (602) 957-1800 Email: mvaz@gblaw.com DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
17 AND WILL NOT EXCEED ONE FOOT CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. NO NOISE, ODOR OR VIBRATION WILL BE PROTECTION PROGRAM (APP) GENERAL PERMIT 4.01 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARIZONA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Email: KThomas@vestar.com Email: Davidr@bdgaz.com Contact: Dennis M. Newcombe, Sr. Planner
EMITTED SO THAT IT EXCEEDS THE GENERAL LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR OR VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES TITLE 18, CHAPTER 9, SECTION E301 (ACC R18-9-E301) WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE.
OUTSIDE OF THE SITE. S. THE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM WITHIN THIS PROJECT WILL BE A PRIVATE SYSTEM, OWNED AND Email: dnewcombe@gblaw.com
G. OWNER OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) OR ASSOCIATION. THE SYSTEM WILL BE REVIEWED AND INSPECTED
DOVE VALLEY RD. ALL LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. BY THE BUILDING SAFETY SECTION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Civil Engineer Landscape Architect Ph: (602) 256-4446
H. THE EXISTING STRUCTURES MUST COMPLY WITH THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY PROVISIONS IN THE PHOENIX
CONSTRUCTION CODE PRIOR TO USE.
T. ALL ON-SITE WATER LINES, SHALL BE PRIVATE PLUMBING LINES SUBJECT TO THE PHOENIX PLUMBING CODE. Optimus Civil Design Group LLC. Laskin & Associates, Inc.
RT
I. AFTER FINAL APPROVAL THE PROJECT WILL BE RE-INSPECTED FOR ZONING COMPLIANCE DURING 4650 E. Cotton Center Blvd. St. #140 5013 E. Washington St. #110
SITE NO
H
EY J.

CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. THE APPLICANT IS TO NOTIFY PDD PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY TO
ARRANGE FOR INSPECTIONS. CALL 602-262-6981 AND REQUEST A DESIGN REVIEW INSPECTION.
ALL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND SATELLITE DISHES SHALL BE SCREENED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE TALLEST
Phoenix, AZ. 85040
Contact: Jamsheed (Jeff) Behrana
Phoenix, AZ. 85034
Contact: Daniel M. Dodson
VALL
CITY OF PHOENIX
EQUIPMENT.
K. ALL SERVICE AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED TO CONCEAL TRASH CONTAINERS, LOADING DOCKS, Ph: (602) 393-5234 Ph: (602) 840-7771
PKW
Y
TRANSFORMERS, BACK FLOW PREVENTERS, AND OTHER MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FROM EYE
LEVEL ADJACENT TO ALL PUBLIC STREETS.
Email: JBehrana@optimuscdg.com Email: daniel@laskindesign.com
AUG 26 2025
LOOP
SONORAN DESERT DR. L. BARBED, RAZOR, OR CONCERTINA WIRE (OR SIMILAR) SHALL NOT BE USED ON THIS SITE WHERE VISIBLE FROM
PUBLIC STREETS OR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
M. ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE REVIEW AND PERMIT.
N. SMOKE, GAS AND ODOR EMISSIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH REGULATION III OF MARICOPA COUNTY AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL RULES AND REGULATIONS.
Planning & Development
Department
08.21.25
DOVE VALLEY TOWNE CENTER Project No.: 23089.000_ST23
Proposed Commercial Development Issue Date:
Title:
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

08-21-2025
DSD KIVA # : 24-1233
Site Plan Pre-App.: PAPP 2405236
Zoning/GPA Pre-App.: ZPA-225-24
Phoenix, AZ
SP001 PAPP # : ZPA-225-24
   









     
     
           
     




ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-24-25-2



Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2025
Request From S-1 NBCOD and FH PCD NBCOD
Request To C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD and FH NBCOD
Proposal Commercial, retail, and hospitality uses
Location Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert
Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 6-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-NG-1-25-2) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-24-25-2) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

Committee Member Paul Li declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from this
item, bringing the quorum to six members.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of General Plan Amendment case GPA-
NG-1-25-2, including the location of the request, the General Plan Land Use Map
designation, and surrounding General Plan Land Use Map designations. Mr. Zambrano
shared the proposal and noted that the request also includes an update to the City
Trails Network Map. Mr. Zambrano displayed the existing and proposed trails map. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the proposal has not received any letters of opposition or support.
Mr. Zambrano shared the staff findings and stated that staff recommends approval. Mr.
Zambrano then provided an overview of rezoning case Z-24-25-2, including the location
of the request and surrounding zoning and land uses. Mr. Zambrano shared
background information on the site regarding the North Black Canyon Major
Employment Corridor, the North Gateway Village Core Plan, and the North Black
Canyon Corridor Plan. Mr. Zambrano noted that the Parks and Recreation Department
confirmed that the 110-acre district park envisioned for the subject site within the North
Gateway Village Core Plan is now planned for another location. Mr. Zambrano

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 261
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-24-25-2

displayed the site plan, elevations, and rendering for the proposed project and stated
that as noted in the staff report, the proposal supports the goals, policies, and
recommendations of several adopted plans, policies, and initiatives. Mr. Zambrano
stated that the proposal has not received any letters of support or opposition. Mr.
Zambrano shared the staff findings and stated that staff recommends approval subject
to stipulations. Mr. Zambrano shared the recommended stipulations and next steps for
public hearings.

Applicant Presentation:
Manjula Vaz, with Gammage & Burnham, PLC, introduced herself and her team. Ms.
Vaz stated that they have been working with City staff for over a year. Ms. Vaz stated
that they have tried to take into account all of the policy plans in the area. Ms. Vaz
stated that the height waiver request is for four-story hotels as they come in, which is
consistent with other approved height waivers in the area.

David Larcher, with Vestar, introduced himself and shared other shopping centers that
Vestar has developed within the Phoenix metropolitan area. Mr. Larcher stated that this
would be a high-quality development, similar to the other shopping centers that Vestar
has developed. Mr. Larcher stated that Vestar is a long-term holder of their
developments.

Kean Thomas, with Vestar, displayed and discussed the proposed site plan and
surrounding developments. Mr. Thomas summarized off-site improvements that Vestar
will be building and shared ultimate street cross-sections. Mr. Thomas discussed the
proposed trail connectivity. Mr. Thomas discussed the conceptual design, noting that it
would comply with the North Black Canyon Overlay District. Mr. Thomas discussed the
amenities that would be included. Mr. Thomas discussed the proposed amendment to
the City Trails Network Map. Mr. Thomas displayed and discussed the 32nd Avenue
cross-section and multi-use trail. Mr. Thomas concluded that the proposed development
conforms with adopted policy plans for the village and noted that Vestar looks forward to
contributing to the North Gateway Village through thoughtful placemaking and design.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Aaron Stein asked how many points of ingress and egress
would be located off of the Interstate 17 freeway. Ms. Vaz responded that there would
be seven points of ingress and egress.

Mr. Thomas clarified that the ingress and egress off of the Interstate 17 freeway would
be off of a frontage road with deceleration lanes, noting that it would be a normal street
condition, including a sidewalk and landscaping.

Chair Julie Read stated that she met with Vestar to get some questions answered and
to provide some input regarding items that were important to the community. Chair
Read stated that there was a lot of time spent on the design. Chair Read stated that
because the North Gateway Village Core did not develop how it was originally
envisioned as, the North Gateway Village lacked a vision for future development within
the village. Chair Read stated that in other parts of the city, people know where they

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 262
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-24-25-2

are because of how it is designed, such as the Biltmore Fashion Park, Midtown
Phoenix, Roosevelt Row, or the Melrose District. Chair Read stated that the North
Gateway Village lacks this type of placemaking that other places throughout the city
have. Chair Read stated that the North Gateway Village has the largest amount of
State Trust Land within the City of Phoenix, noting that the village will continue to grow
and develop. Chair Read stated that part of the job of being a committee member is to
be really thoughtful of new development and ensure it aligns with how the community
wants the village to develop. Chair Read stated that this would be the first retail
development for the North Gateway Village, and it will set the tone for all future
development in the village. Chair Read stated that she wants to make sure that while
the community has a say, that the community really likes the way it is going to look,
and that it ties into the Sonoran Desert and Sonoran Preserve. Chair Read stated that
the applicant has done a great job of being really thoughtful on the design. Chair Read
stated that the proposed site plan is not final, and it may change, but noted that it is a
good start and a good representation of what is to come. Chair Read stated that she
requested that Vestar ensure that the trail stations be cleaned and that the trash bins
be emptied regularly, noting that Vestar as the property management company will be
in charge of this maintenance. Chair Read added that she requested that pet waste
stations be provided throughout the site and that they be maintained. Chair Read
stated that she wants to ensure that the amenities are clean and safe for the
community members that will be using it. Chair Read stated that Vestar has agreed to
these items. Chair Read stated that she also asked that Vestar ensure that the open
spaces within both Vestar projects are exciting and activating for the community. Chair
Read stated that the village has a lot of young families and there are not a lot of places
to go within the village for families to spend time together. Chair Read referenced the
water features at Desert Ridge Marketplace and Scottsdale Quarter, and how families
could spend a good part of the day there. Chair Read stated that having community
gathering spots is very important to this community. Chair Read stated that there
should be less asphalt and pavement and more places to connect with neighbors and
families. Chair Read added that arts and culture plays a big role in developing
communities. Chair Read stated that the City of Phoenix has great arts and culture
pieces, but none are within the North Gateway Village. Chair Read stated that she has
challenged Vestar to think creatively and has asked Vestar to work with local artists to
bring arts and culture into the North Gateway Village. Chair Read stated that the
Thompson Thrift project included a stipulation for inclusion of a mural that the
Committee voted on. Chair Read stated that she hoped to see this type of art moving
forward for the Vestar property. Chair Read stated that Dove Valley Road is currently
scalloped and is dangerous to drive on with how development has occurred along the
roadway. Chair Read stated that Vestar has agreed that the construction of Dove
Valley Road will be completed as one of their first improvements. Chair Read stated
that she has also asked Vestar to include improvements around the APS substation at
North Valley Parkway and Carefree Highway. Chair Read asked Mr. Thomas to explain
the relationship with APS.

Mr. Thomas stated that APS has control over their property and Vestar cannot touch
their easements or their property. Mr. Thomas stated that Vestar does have enough
room on their property to program buildings and landscaping around the APS

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 263
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-24-25-2

substation in order to shield it. Mr. Thomas stated that Vestar cannot touch the east
side of the substation, but there is a lot to be done on the north and west side of it to
make it look more attractive with buildings and landscaping, depending on what APS
will allow close to their easements.

Chair Read stated that she hopes to facilitate some conversations between Vestar and
APS about what those improvements might look like. Chair Read stated that there is an
APS substation at the southwest corner of 7th Street and Roosevelt Street which is
hidden behind artistic walls and buildings. Chair Read stated that she hopes that there
could be a similar creative solution to screen the APS substation that will add value
and bring arts and culture and community activation to the area. Chair Read stated that
there is a big sign across the street for the Melrose District and when crossing under it,
people know that they are in the Melrose District. Chair Read stated that the North
Gateway Village has its name because it is the north gateway into the City of Phoenix.
Chair Read stated that she has asked Vestar to be creative for some sort of monument
sign, similar to the sign for the Desert Ridge Marketplace. Chair Read also requested
that no cacti or pointy plants be planted adjacent to areas where kids may be playing.

Public Comments:
None.

Applicant Response:
None.

MOTION – Z-24-25-2:
Committee Member Andrea Crouch motioned to recommend approval of Z-24-25-2,
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Will Manion seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-24-25-2:
6-0; the motion to recommend approval of Z-24-25-2 per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee members Crouch, Kennelly, Manion, Salow, Stein, and Read in
favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 264
ATTACHMENT D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: October 6, 2025

From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner

Subject: ITEM NO. 5 (Z-24-25-2) – NORTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 17
AND SONORAN DESERT DRIVE

Rezoning Case No. Z-24-25-2 is a request to rezone 92.33 acres located at the
northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive from 87.25 acres of S-1
NBCOD (Ranch or Farm Residence, North Black Canyon Overlay District) and 5.08
acres of FH PCD NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion Management District, Planned
Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to 92.08 acres of C-2
HGT/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) and 0.25 acres of FH NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion Management
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to allow commercial, retail, and hospitality
uses.

The North Gateway Village Planning Committee (VPC) heard this request on
September 11, 2025 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 6-0.

After the Village Planning Committee meeting, the applicant worked with staff to
propose modifications to Stipulation No. 37 regarding the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over
Skunk Creek Wash. Staff concurs with the proposed changes to provide clarification on
timing of construction of the bridge and subsequent issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy linked to the construction of the bridge.

To address the required regional water transmission and distribution mains, the Water
Services Department requests an easement along the west side of the property as
shown in the enclosed Exhibit. The exact location of the water line crossing will be as
determined by the Arizona Department of Transportation. Staff recommends the
addition of Stipulation No. 48 to reflect the request.

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

1. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size
and location, and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. Colors shall be muted and blend, rather than contrast strongly, with the
surrounding desert environment, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025


3. All surface retention areas shall be natural and organic in shape, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

4. Retention areas shall be planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings, and planted for every 400 square
feet of retention area evenly distributed throughout the retention areas.

b. A minimum of five, 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs,
accents, and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout
the landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.

5. A minimum of 8,000 square feet in aggregate shall be provided for pedestrian
plazas, with no one plaza being less than 2,000 square feet, and shall be
maintained by the property owner as a gathering place for the public and for
events, adhering to the following standards, and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

a. The plazas shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not
be restricted during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

b. The plazas shall include shaded seating for public use and a minimum
of two additional amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game
area, interactive art feature, splash pad, performance stage, fire pit, or
other similar amenities.

c. A minimum of 50% of the plaza edges shall be lined with buildings or a
permanent shade structure. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor
building frontages facing the plaza, measured as the area between 3
and 8 feet above grade for the width of the facade, shall be glazing,
consisting of clear windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the
visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either
side of the window.

6. A minimum 6-foot-wide public north-south pedestrian pathway shall be
provided near the center of the site, west of 32nd Avenue, for a minimum of the
north half of the site and connecting to Dove Valley Road, and shall comply
with the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian
pathway is a minimum of 16 feet wide:

Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum
2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage,
except where drive aisles cross the pathway where necessary.
Structural shade elements may be used, and footers may be
placed within the landscape strip along the pathway.

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75% of the ground floor frontages facing the
pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8
feet above grade for the width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as
specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the
window.

b. The pathway shall connect with the public plazas.

c. The pathway can either continue to the south portion of the site, as
specified above, or connect to the sidewalk on the west side of 32nd
Avenue.

7. Any surface parking adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and 32nd Avenue shall be
setback a minimum of 50 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
south side of Dove Valley Road between the shared-use path (SUP) on the
east side of Skunk Creek Wash and the multi-use trail (MUT) on the west side
of Skunk Creek Wash, and a minimum 10-foot-wide MUT shall be constructed
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

9. A 25-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
west bank of Skunk Creek Wash aligned with the limits of development, west of
the Floodway Zone AE boundary, and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail
(MUT) shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail, and shall comply with the following, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The MUT on the west side of Skunk Creek Wash shall connect Dove
Valley Road and Sonoran Desert Drive.

b. A minimum of 75% of the MUT shall be shaded by a structure,
landscaping, or a combination of the two.
Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025


c. Trail stations shall be provided along the trail, generally conforming to
the site plan date stamped August 26, 2025. The trail stations shall
include amenities such as outdoor seating, shade structures, water
stations, bike fix it station, art features, or other similar amenities.

10. A minimum landscape setback of 10 feet shall be provided along the west side
of the Skunk Creek Wash multi-use trail, planted to the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, to provide a
minimum of 75% shade along the multi-use trail.

b. A minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs,
accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a maximum
height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas
to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.

11. A minimum 25-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be
dedicated, and a minimum 10-foot-wide east-west shared-use path (SUP) shall
be constructed west of 32nd Avenue, in alignment with the Paseo Del Prado
trail/bridge and connecting to the future pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the
Interstate 17 freeway, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The paseo shall connect the sidewalk along the west side of 32nd
Avenue to the sidewalk along the east side of the I-17 frontage road.

b. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building
placement creates an alignment and synergy for the paseo. This can
be achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor
seating, and points of architectural interest along the paseo.

c. The paseo shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two:

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum
2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage,
except where drive aisles cross the pathway where necessary.
Structural shade elements may be used, and footers may be
placed within the landscape strip along the paseo.

Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75% of the ground floor frontages facing the
pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8
feet above grade for the width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as
specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the
window.

12. Where pedestrian pathways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

13. Bicycle parking shall be provided per the requirements of Section 1307.H.6 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle parking shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and open
space areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

14. Two public bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided and
maintained: one along the multi-use trail adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and
one internal to the site near a paseo, pedestrian walkway, or public plaza. The
bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided in areas of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable.
The repair station shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools
affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station
or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

15. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

16. A minimum of 10% of the provided bicycle parking spaces shall include
standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

17. A minimum of 30 of the required vehicle parking spaces shall include EV
Capable infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,

Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. Only landscape materials listed in Appendix A of the North Black Canyon
Overlay District (Section 654 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance) shall be
utilized, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.

20. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin,
and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and functional turf
areas located for such uses as parks and common areas, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

21. A leak detection device shall be installed for the irrigation system of landscape
areas larger than 10,000 square feet.

22. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade
trees, or a combination thereof.

23. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Businesses
Water Efficiency Program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

24. All bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian pathways (including sidewalks), and trails
shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to
provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

25. The FH-zoned portion of the site shall be preserved as permanent undisturbed
open space and shall be dedicated to the City as Sonoran Preserve prior to
preliminary site plan approval, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department and the Parks and Recreation Department.

26. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE & Zone
AE-floodway, on panels 04013C 1745 L of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
with an effective date of October 16, 2013. The following requirements shall
apply, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The Architect and Engineer are required to show the floodplain
boundary limits on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan and
ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities have been considered,
following National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44
CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is not limited to, provisions in

Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City
Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for
review and approval of floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR prior to
issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

d. A LOMR application shall be submitted to the Floodplain Management
section of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval prior
to issuance of vertical construction permits.

e. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved LOMR prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.

27. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
south half of Dove Valley Road, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Improvements to Dove Valley Road shall include:

a. An extension of the existing box culvert across Dove Valley Road to its
ultimate limits, including the construction of the downstream
maintenance access ramps.

b. Construction of the south half of the low flow crossing to an ‘A’ cross
section. Improvements shall consider Canyon Crossroads Master Street
Plan for Dove Valley Road Improvements.

c. Dedication and construction of ADOT traffic interchange improvements
to the eastern parcel boundary. The dedication shall consist of
applicable slope and drainage easements from existing interchange
tapering to a minimum 140-foot right-of-way to Dove Valley Road.

28. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the south side of Dove Valley Road to match the Canyon
Crossroads Master Street Plan design, and shall comply with the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.
Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025


Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

29. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way for the frontage road on the east side of
Interstate 17 from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive shall be
dedicated and constructed, or as otherwise approved by ADOT.

30. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of the
Interstate 17 frontage road, adjacent to the development, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department and the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT).

31. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for
32nd Avenue to its full width from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive.
32nd Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum Collector F cross-section, with
appropriate intersection flares to allow for future intersection connection south
of Sonoran Desert Drive or as otherwise identified and approved by the Street
Transportation Department through an accepted Traffic Impact Analysis.

32. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of 32nd Avenue between Dove Valley Road and
Sonoran Desert Drive, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

33. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the north side of Sonoran Desert Drive, adjacent to the
development, and shall comply with the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department and the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT).



Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

34. A minimum of 140 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed to
extend North Valley Parkway from its current terminus to Carefree Highway.
North Valley Parkway shall be constructed to its full width in accordance with
Wash per the adopted storm water policy manual for a 100-year dry crossing of
Skunk Creek Wash.

35. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of North Valley Parkway, and shall comply with the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the
sidewalk to provide a minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained
to a maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

36. A Master Circulation/Trails Plan for the entirety of the rezoned area shall be
submitted to the Planning and Developed Department and Street
Transportation Department for review and approval prior to submitting
Preliminary Site Plans for the first phase of development. The Master
Circulation/Trails Plan shall incorporate the following elements:

a. Skunk Creek Wash trail, Sonoran Desert Drive trail, Dove Valley Road
trail, the east-west shared-use path (Paseo del Prado), sidewalks, and
pedestrian pathways throughout the site to connect to all buildings.

Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

b. Locations and standards for trail amenities including but not limited to
lighting, seating and drinking fountains.

37. An elevated pedestrian/bicycle bridge shall be funded and constructed, BY
THE DEVELOPER, connecting the West Bank to the East Bank of Skunk
Creek Wash, in alignment with THE Paseo De Prado trail, as identified in
Rezoning Case (Z-59-21 / Ordinance G-6957). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF
A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR THE ELEVATED
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE, THE DEVELOPER MAY REQUEST
CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR UP TO 50% OF THE SITE (BASED
ON AREA). No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued FOR STRUCTURES
LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN OR for an A TOTAL area
that exceeds 50% of the site (approximately 45 acres) prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion for the bridge. IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO
OBTAIN FINAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE FINAL 50% OF
THE SITE, BUT THE PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION IS
INCOMPLETE DUE TO LACKING EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS FROM
UNAFFILIATED NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS NECESSARY FOR
THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER MAY BE ABLE TO
OBTAIN CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ON THE FINAL 50% OF THE
SITE PROVIDED, THE DEVELOPER DEMONSTRATED GOOD FAITH IN
OBTAINING THE NECESSARY EASEMENTS/DEDICATIONS, THE BRIDGE
IS FULLY DESIGNED, AND FUNDS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE
BRIDGE AS PART OF A PUBLIC PROJECT, INCLUDING NECESSARY
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (ESTIMATED AT 40%), ARE PROVIDED TO THE
CITY. BRIDGE DESIGN AND THE BUDGET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
FUNDS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
ENGINEER.

38. The developer shall design, fund, and install a pedestrian crosswalk with
activated warning connection across 32nd Avenue from the subject site
connecting to the east-west paseo (Paseo del Prado), as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

39. An updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be submitted by the successful
bidder of the auction parcel commensurate to the site-specific development
proposed. The TIA shall require approval prior to preliminary approval being
granted by the City.

40. Any proposed access along Sonoran Desert Drive shall located at the eastern
limits of the site and be restricted to right in, right out, left out only.

41. In accordance with City Council Resolution 22048, development shall be
responsible for addressing project impacts on Sonoran Desert Drive in the TIA
and provide a level of compensation proportionate to the identified impacts to
the corridor which may be adjusted to reflect any modifications in the mitigation,
subject to review and approval by the City.
Z-24-25-2
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025


42. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
shall be replaced and all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in
compliance with current ADA guidelines.

43. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

48. A WATER LINE EASEMENT UP TO 80 FEET WIDE SHALL BE DEDICATED
ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN
THE STAFF MEMO DATED OCTOBER 6, 2025, OR AS OTHERWISE
APPROVED BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE
WATER LINE CROSSING WILL BE AS DETERMINED BY THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.


Enclosures
Exhibit A – Location of Potential Water Line Easement




Exhibit A




DOVE VALLEY ROAD
N89°33'14"E 1243.95'








.
30' OVRH
UTILITY
ESMT.



30' AT&T
ESMT.




S89°51'50"W 296.89'




ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
OCTOBER 6, 2025

ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-24-25-2 (Companion Case GPA-NG-25-2)
Location: Northeast corner of Interstate 17 and Sonoran Desert Drive
From: S-1 NBCOD and FH PCD NBCOD
To: C-2 HGT/WVR NBCOD and FH NBCOD
Acreage: 92.33
Proposal: Commercial, retail, and hospitality uses
Applicant: Dennis Newcombe, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Manjula Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
North Gateway 9/11/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 6-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated October 6, 2025.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-24-25-2, per the staff
memo dated October 6, 2025.

Maker: Matthews
Second: Odegard-Begay
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Hu
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation.

2. The proposal will add to the variety of land uses adjacent to the North Gateway Village
Core and within the North Black Canyon Corridor.

3. As stipulated, the proposal supports efforts from various plans, overlays, and
initiatives, including the North Gateway Village Core Plan, the North Black
Canyon Corridor Plan, the North Black Canyon Overlay District, the Monarch
Butterfly Pledge initiative, the Shade Phoenix Plan, the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles policy, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan, the Phoenix Climate Action Plan, and the Conservation
Measures for New Development policy.



Stipulations:

1. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing such as
textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location,
and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. Colors shall be muted and blend, rather than contrast strongly, with the surrounding
desert environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. All surface retention areas shall be natural and organic in shape, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

4. Retention areas shall be planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center, or
in equivalent groupings, and planted for every 400 square feet of retention area
evenly distributed throughout the retention areas.

b. A minimum of five, 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas
to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.

5. A minimum of 8,000 square feet in aggregate shall be provided for pedestrian plazas,
with no one plaza being less than 2,000 square feet, and shall be maintained by the
property owner as a gathering place for the public and for events, adhering to the
following standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The plazas shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not be
restricted during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

b. The plazas shall include shaded seating for public use and a minimum of two
additional amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game area, interactive art
feature, splash pad, performance stage, fire pit, or other similar amenities.

c. A minimum of 50% of the plaza edges shall be lined with buildings or a
permanent shade structure. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor building
frontages facing the plaza, measured as the area between 3 and 8 feet above
grade for the width of the facade, shall be glazing, consisting of clear windows
that will allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the
manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the window.

6. A minimum 6-foot-wide public north-south pedestrian pathway shall be provided near
the center of the site, west of 32nd Avenue, for a minimum of the north half of the site
and connecting to Dove Valley Road, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following elements,
or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian pathway is a minimum
of 16 feet wide:

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum 2-inch
caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs
per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers,
evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas to achieve a minimum
of 50% live coverage, except where drive aisles cross the pathway
where necessary. Structural shade elements may be used, and footers
may be placed within the landscape strip along the pathway.

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a minimum of
75% of the ground floor frontages facing the pedestrian pathway,
measured as the area between 3 and 8 feet above grade for the width of
the facade, consisting of clear windows that will allow a minimum of 75%
of the visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on
either side of the window.

b. The pathway shall connect with the public plazas.

c. The pathway can either continue to the south portion of the site, as specified
above, or connect to the sidewalk on the west side of 32nd Avenue.

7. Any surface parking adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and 32nd Avenue shall be setback
a minimum of 50 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the south side
of Dove Valley Road between the shared-use path (SUP) on the east side of Skunk
Creek Wash and the multi-use trail (MUT) on the west side of Skunk Creek Wash, and
a minimum 10-foot-wide MUT shall be constructed within the easement in accordance
with the MAG supplemental detail, and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

9. A 25-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the west bank
of Skunk Creek Wash aligned with the limits of development, west of the Floodway
Zone AE boundary, and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, and
shall comply with the following, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. The MUT on the west side of Skunk Creek Wash shall connect Dove Valley
Road and Sonoran Desert Drive.

b. A minimum of 75% of the MUT shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two.

c. Trail stations shall be provided along the trail, generally conforming to the site
plan date stamped August 26, 2025. The trail stations shall include amenities
such as outdoor seating, shade structures, water stations, bike fix it station, art
features, or other similar amenities.

10. A minimum landscape setback of 10 feet shall be provided along the west side of the
Skunk Creek Wash multi-use trail, planted to the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet
on center, or in equivalent groupings, to provide a minimum of 75% shade along
the multi-use trail.

b. A minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs per tree and a mixture of shrubs, accents,
and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a maximum height of two feet,
evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas to achieve a minimum of 50%
live coverage.

11. A minimum 25-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be dedicated, and a
minimum 10-foot-wide east-west shared-use path (SUP) shall be constructed west of
32nd Avenue, in alignment with the Paseo Del Prado trail/bridge and connecting to the
future pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Interstate 17 freeway, and shall comply with
the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The paseo shall connect the sidewalk along the west side of 32nd Avenue to the
sidewalk along the east side of the I-17 frontage road.

b. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building placement creates
an alignment and synergy for the paseo. This can be achieved by placing uses
such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor seating, and points of architectural
interest along the paseo.

c. The paseo shall be lined on both sides with either of the following elements, or a
combination of the two:

(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, planted with minimum 2-inch
caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings, and a minimum of five 5-gallon shrubs
per tree, and a mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers,
evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas to achieve a minimum
of 50% live coverage, except where drive aisles cross the pathway
where necessary. Structural shade elements may be used, and footers
may be placed within the landscape strip along the paseo.

(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a minimum of
75% of the ground floor frontages facing the pedestrian pathway,
measured as the area between 3 and 8 feet above grade for the width of
the facade, consisting of clear windows that will allow a minimum of 75%
of the visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on
either side of the window.

12. Where pedestrian pathways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another material that visually
contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

13. Bicycle parking shall be provided per the requirements of Section 1307.H.6 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle parking shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near building entrances and open space areas and installed per
the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks
shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

14. Two public bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided and maintained:
one along the multi-use trail adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and one internal to the site
near a paseo, pedestrian walkway, or public plaza. The bicycle repair stations (“fix it
stations”) shall be provided in areas of high visibility and separated from vehicular
maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be
limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to
the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals
and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

15. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native nectar
species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

16. A minimum of 10% of the provided bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

17. A minimum of 30 of the required vehicle parking spaces shall include EV Capable
infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not limited
to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater
Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for
Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. Only landscape materials listed in Appendix A of the North Black Canyon Overlay
District (Section 654 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance) shall be utilized, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

20. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin, and only
allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and functional turf areas located for
such uses as parks and common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

21. A leak detection device shall be installed for the irrigation system of landscape areas
larger than 10,000 square feet.

22. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by structures or by
minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, or a combination
thereof.

23. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that demonstrates a
commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Businesses Water Efficiency Program
for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

24. All bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian pathways (including sidewalks), and trails shall be
shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum
of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

25. The FH-zoned portion of the site shall be preserved as permanent undisturbed open
space and shall be dedicated to the City as Sonoran Preserve prior to preliminary site
plan approval, as approved by the Planning and Development Department and the
Parks and Recreation Department.

26. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE & Zone AE-
floodway, on panels 04013C 1745 L of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) with an
effective date of October 16, 2013. The following requirements shall apply, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

a. The Architect and Engineer are required to show the floodplain boundary limits
on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan and ensure that impacts to the
proposed facilities have been considered, following National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is not
limited to, provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the
Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval
of floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR prior to issuance of a
Grading and Drainage permit.

d. A LOMR application shall be submitted to the Floodplain Management section
of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of
vertical construction permits.

e. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved LOMR prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.

27. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the south
half of Dove Valley Road, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Improvements to Dove Valley Road shall include:

a. An extension of the existing box culvert across Dove Valley Road to its ultimate
limits, including the construction of the downstream maintenance access
ramps.

b. Construction of the south half of the low flow crossing to an ‘A’ cross section.
Improvements shall consider Canyon Crossroads Master Street Plan for Dove
Valley Road Improvements.

c. Dedication and construction of ADOT traffic interchange improvements to the
eastern parcel boundary. The dedication shall consist of applicable slope and
drainage easements from existing interchange tapering to a minimum 140-foot
right-of-way to Dove Valley Road.

28. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be constructed on
the south side of Dove Valley Road to match the Canyon Crossroads Master Street
Plan design, and shall comply with the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet
on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the sidewalk to provide a
minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.


b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a
maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas
to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian
environment.

29. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way for the frontage road on the east side of Interstate
17 from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive shall be dedicated and constructed,
or as otherwise approved by ADOT.

30. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the east side of the Interstate
17 frontage road, adjacent to the development, as approved or modified by the Planning
and Development Department and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT).

31. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for 32nd
Avenue to its full width from Dove Valley Road to Sonoran Desert Drive. 32nd Avenue
shall be constructed to a minimum Collector F cross-section, with appropriate
intersection flares to allow for future intersection connection south of Sonoran Desert
Drive or as otherwise identified and approved by the Street Transportation Department
through an accepted Traffic Impact Analysis.

32. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be constructed on
both sides of 32nd Avenue between Dove Valley Road and Sonoran Desert Drive, and
shall comply with the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet
on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the sidewalk to provide a
minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a
maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas
to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian
environment.

33. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be constructed on
the north side of Sonoran Desert Drive, adjacent to the development, and shall comply
with the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT).

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet
on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the sidewalk to provide a
minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a
maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas
to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian
environment.

34. A minimum of 140 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed to extend
North Valley Parkway from its current terminus to Carefree Highway. North Valley
Parkway shall be constructed to its full width in accordance with City of Phoenix Street
Classification Map including a bridge over Skunk Creek Wash per the adopted storm
water policy manual for a 100-year dry crossing of Skunk Creek Wash.

35. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be constructed on
both sides of North Valley Parkway, and shall comply with the following standards, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet
on center, or in equivalent groupings, on both sides of the sidewalk to provide a
minimum of 75% shade along the sidewalk.

b. A mixture of shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers, maintained to a
maximum height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the landscape areas
to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian
environment.

36. A Master Circulation/Trails Plan for the entirety of the rezoned area shall be submitted
to the Planning and Developed Department and Street Transportation Department for
review and approval prior to submitting Preliminary Site Plans for the first phase of
development. The Master Circulation/Trails Plan shall incorporate the following
elements:

a. Skunk Creek Wash trail, Sonoran Desert Drive trail, Dove Valley Road trail, the
east-west shared-use path (Paseo del Prado), sidewalks, and pedestrian
pathways throughout the site to connect to all buildings.

b. Locations and standards for trail amenities including but not limited to lighting,
seating and drinking fountains.

37. An elevated pedestrian/bicycle bridge shall be funded and constructed, BY THE
DEVELOPER, connecting the West Bank to the East Bank of Skunk Creek Wash, in
alignment with THE Paseo De Prado trail, as identified in Rezoning Case (Z-59-21 /
Ordinance G-6957). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE ELEVATED PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE, THE
DEVELOPER MAY REQUEST CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR UP TO 50%
OF THE SITE (BASED ON AREA). No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued FOR
STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN OR for an A
TOTAL area that exceeds 50% of the site (approximately 45 acres) prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Completion for the bridge. IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO OBTAIN
FINAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE FINAL 50% OF THE SITE, BUT
THE PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION IS INCOMPLETE DUE TO
LACKING EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS FROM UNAFFILIATED NEIGHBORING
PROPERTY OWNERS NECESSARY FOR THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, THE
DEVELOPER MAY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ON THE
FINAL 50% OF THE SITE PROVIDED, THE DEVELOPER DEMONSTRATED GOOD
FAITH IN OBTAINING THE NECESSARY EASEMENTS/DEDICATIONS, THE BRIDGE
IS FULLY DESIGNED, AND FUNDS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE BRIDGE AS
PART OF A PUBLIC PROJECT, INCLUDING NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS (ESTIMATED AT 40%), ARE PROVIDED TO THE CITY. BRIDGE DESIGN
AND THE BUDGET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDS ARE SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.

38. The developer shall design, fund, and install a pedestrian crosswalk with activated
warning connection across 32nd Avenue from the subject site connecting to the east-
west paseo (Paseo del Prado), as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

39. An updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be submitted by the successful bidder of
the auction parcel commensurate to the site-specific development proposed. The TIA
shall require approval prior to preliminary approval being granted by the City.

40. Any proposed access along Sonoran Desert Drive shall located at the eastern limits of
the site and be restricted to right in, right out, left out only.

41. In accordance with City Council Resolution 22048, development shall be responsible for
addressing project impacts on Sonoran Desert Drive in the TIA and provide a level of
compensation proportionate to the identified impacts to the corridor which may be
adjusted to reflect any modifications in the mitigation, subject to review and approval by
the City.

42. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, any broken or
out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets shall be replaced and
all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

43. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.




47. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office
and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.

48. A WATER LINE EASEMENT UP TO 80 FEET WIDE SHALL BE DEDICATED ALONG
THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN THE STAFF
MEMO DATED OCTOBER 6, 2025, OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE
WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT. THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE WATER LINE CROSSING WILL BE
AS DETERMINED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-LV-1-25
-7 - Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road (Resolution 22340) -
District 7

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment to consider adopting
the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if approved.
Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 95.86 acres from
Commercial / Commerce / Business Park and Commercial to Commercial / Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre; and an update to the City Trails System Map. This item is
a companion case to Z-29-25-7 and must be heard prior to Z-29-25-7.

Summary
Application: GPA-LV-1-25-7
Current Designation: Commercial / Commerce / Business Park (52.30 acres) and
Commercial (43.56 acres)
Proposed Plan Designation: Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 95.86
Proposed Use: Commercial and multifamily residential and removal of the multi-use
trail located along the Olney Avenue alignment

Owner: Cold Springs, LLC
Applicant: Vestar
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP

Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard the item on
June 9, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard the item on September 8,
2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation,
by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road



Council District: 7
Parcel Addresses: 9680 and 9900 S. 59th Avenue

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





ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION



RESOLUTION


A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-LV-1-25-7,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE CITY
TRAILS NETWORK MAP FOR THE SITE DESCRIBED HEREIN.

____________


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

follows:

SECTION 1. The 2025 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by

Resolution 22191, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-LV-1-25-7. The 95.86 acres

located at the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road is designated as

Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.

SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the 2025 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification and trails

system change as shown below:




PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of November

2025.



-2- Resolution

MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney



By:___________________________
___________________________



REVIEWED BY:


______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




-3- Resolution


ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 5, 2025

Application: GPA-LV-1-25-7
Owner: Cold Springs, LLC
Applicant: Vestar
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Location: Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins
Road
Acreage: 95.86
Current Plan Designation: Commercial / Commerce/Business Park
(52.30 acres) and Commercial (43.56 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units
per acre
Reason for Requested Change: A minor general plan amendment to allow
commercial and multifamily residential and
removal of the Multi-Use Trail located along
the Olney Avenue alignment
Laveen Village Planning Committee September 8, 2025
Meeting Date:
Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The proposed land use map designation provides a land use mix that is
appropriate given the site is adjacent to the Loop 202 freeway and within the
Village Core.

2) The companion rezoning case, Z-29-25-7, creates a unified zoning framework
through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the entire site. This General
Plan Amendment will provide for a General Plan Land Use Map designation
that is consistent with the proposed PUD.

3) The companion rezoning case, Z-29-25-7, provides enhanced landscaping
and shade standards and enhanced development and design standards to
make the proposed development a compatible addition to the area and
incorporate rural features.



Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-1-25-7



4) The multi-use trail will not extend through the subject site and across the
freeway; furthermore, the property on the southwest corner of the site will be
developed as ADOT retention. The companion rezoning case Z-29-25-7 has a
pedestrian circulation plan with enhanced landscaping and shading.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is 95.86 gross acres located at the southwest corner of 59th Avenue
and Dobbins Road. The site currently consists of vacant land with parts of the Hudson
Farm farmhouse.

This request proposes a minor amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to
allow commercial and multifamily residential. The proposal will modify the land use
map designation from 52.30 acres of Commercial / Commerce-Business Park and
43.56 acres of Commercial to Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.




General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Source: Planning and Development Department

Furthermore, the General Plan Amenement proposes the removal of the Multi-Use
trail located along the Olney Avenue alignment. The City Trails Map currently depicts
a multi-use trail along the Olney Avenue alignment that connects to a planned future
trail west of the Loop 202 freeway. However, the segment west of the freeway
requires reevaluation to account for the freeway’s alignment, anticipated future land
uses, and integration with the broader trail network. The proposed removal of this trail
segment is warranted as Olney Avenue will not extend through the subject site and
across the freeway. Additionally, the property tucked in the southwest corner of the
subject site has been developed as an ADOT retention basin, which also precludes
future trail development through this area.




Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-1-25-7




Trails Map, Exisitng and Proposed
Source: Snell & Willmer

The companion rezoning case Z-29-25-7
is requesting to rezone the site from
93.12 acres of S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-
GCP) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, General
Commerce Park Option) and 1.99 acres
of S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence). The
existing zoning is depicted on the
adjacent figure.




Aerial Zoning Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
SURROUNDING LAND USES

NORTH (across Dobbins Road)
Agricultural land is located north of the subject site, across Dobbins Road and is
designated Commercial. To the northwest of the subject site, across the Loop 202
Freeway is a PUD that allows for commercial and multifamily development and is
designated Commercial / Commerce/Business Park.

EAST (across 59th Avenue)
East of the subject site, across 59th Avenue, is agricultural and vacant land proposed
with commercial, multifamily, and open space uses and is designated Mixed Use and
Preserves / Commercial. The vacant property located north of Olney Avenue is
designated as Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and



Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-1-25-7


Parks/Open Space / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre. Finally, south of Olney
Avenue, east of the subject site, across 59th Avenue is single-family residential
development designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.

SOUTH
A multifamily development is proposed south of the subject site and is designated
Commercial / Commerce/Business Park.

SOUTHWEST
Southwest of the subject parcel is vacant land that is owned by ADOT and is used for
retention for the Loop 202 freeway. This property is designated Commercial /
Commerce/Business Park.

WEST
Vacant property owned by ADOT and utilized for retention is located west of the
subject site and is designated Commercial and Commercial / Commerce/Business
Park. Further west, across the Loop 202 freeway is a proposed development that
includes commercial and multifamily and is designated Commercial and Commercial /
Commerce/Busines Park.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS

• CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: New
development and expansion or redevelopment of exising development in
or near residential areas should be compatible with exising uses and
consistent with adopted plans.

The land use map designation proposed in the General Plan Amendment
request will support the development of commercial uses and higher density
residential wihin the Laveen Village Core. The proposed designation is
compatible with the Mixed Use designation across 59th Avenue and will serve
the surrounding single-family and multifamily development.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS

• CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Provide high quality
urban design and amenities that reflect the best of urban living at an
appropriate village scale.

The proposed land use designation is appropriate for development within the
Village Core and will provide commercial and multifamily residential uses.
Furthermore, the companion rezoning request Z-29-25-7, proposes



Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-1-25-7


development and design standards that embrace the agricultural character of
the Laveen Village including enhanced architecture, increased open space and
landscape standards, and enhanced shading and pedestrian standards.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS

• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities
should consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping,
dinning and recreational options for residents.

The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation will allow for a mix of
uses including commerical, single-family, and multifamily development. The
designation in GPA-LV-1-25-7 will provide commercial services, retail,
restaurants, housing and recreational options for residents of the Laveen
Village.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES

• CORES, CENTERS AND CORRIDORS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate
land uses with the greatest height and most intense uses within village
cores, centers and corridors based on village character, land use needs,
and transportation system capacity.

The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations will allow a mix of
uses with the greatest height and intensity wihin the Laveen Village Core. The
companion rezoning case, Z-29-25-7, proposes development that incorporates
commercial and multi-story residential uses within the Core. The Planned Unit
Development proposes an enhanced pedestrian environment with a continuous
open space, shaded walkways, and agrigarian features.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES

• CANALS & TRAILS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Provide multi-use trail
connections where appropriate.

The existing multi-use trail location would not be accessible to the general
public. The removal of the trail is warranted because the trail will not extend
through the subject site and across the freeway and the trail would be located
adjacent to ADOT retention. The companion rezoning case Z-29-25-7, provides
alternative pedestrian circulation with enhanced shading and cooling stations.




Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-1-25-7


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-LV-1-25-7. The request aligns with the goals and
policies of the General Plan and will result in land use designations that will maximize
the property’s location in the Village Core and adjacent to the Loop 202 freeway.
Along with the companion rezoning case, Z-29-25-7, the General Plan Amendment
will allow for a compatible mix of land uses that will provide commercial uses,
recreational activities, and housing opportunities for the Laveen community. Finally,
the existing and future surrounding land uses, planned street improvements, and Loop
202 freeway support the removal of the multi-use trail along the Olney Avenue
alignment.

Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
September 5, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Land Use Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Trails Sketch Maps (2 pages)




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-1-25-7 (Land Use) ACRES: 95.86 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: LAVEEN COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 8/26/2025
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Commercial / Commerce-Business Park
( 52.30 +/- Acres)
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !




59TH AVE 55TH AVE
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !




Commercial ( 43.56 +/- Acres) !

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!




56TH GLN
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Proposed Change Area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


Residential 0 to 1 du/ac !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Residential 1 to 2 du/ac
DOBBINS RD
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!



Residential 5 to 10 du/ac
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Residential 10 to 15 du/ac ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


Commercial ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !




v
w
Commercial / Commerce / Business Park
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !




! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
Industrial / Commerce / Business Park ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E E E E E
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
E E E E E
Mixed Use ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E E E E E
Parks / Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
E E E E E
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !




57TH DR 55TH DR
Preserves / Commercial




58TH LN
E E E E
E E E EParks/Open Space / Residential 15+ du/ac




ELLIOT RD

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac
( 95.86 +/- Acres)

59TH AVE 55TH AVE
56TH GLN
DOBBINS RD
Proposed Change Area
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac




w
v



58TH LN 57TH DR 55TH DR




ELLIOT RD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-1-25-7 (Land Use) ACRES: 95.86 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: LAVEEN COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 8/26/2025
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Commercial / Commerce-Business Park
( 52.30 +/- Acres)


59TH AVE 55TH AVE
Commercial ( 43.56 +/- Acres)


56TH GLN
Proposed Change Area
Residential 0 to 1 du/ac
Residential 1 to 2 du/ac
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac
DOBBINS RD
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 5 to 10 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Commercial




v
w
Commercial / Commerce / Business Park
Industrial / Commerce / Business Park
Mixed Use
Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac




57TH DR 55TH DR
Parks/Open Space / Residential 15+ du/ac




58TH LN
Preserves / Commercial




ELLIOT RD

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac
( 95.86 +/- Acres)

59TH AVE 55TH AVE
56TH GLN
DOBBINS RD
Proposed Change Area
Commercial / Residential 15+ du/ac




w
v



58TH LN 57TH DR 55TH DR




ELLIOT RD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-1-25-7 (Trails) ACRES: REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: LAVEEN COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 8/26/2025
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Existing Trails



59TH AVE 55TH AVE
56TH GLN
DOBBINS RD




Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
w
v



58TH LN 57TH DR 55TH DR
Proposed Change Area




ELLIOT RD

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Remove Muti-Use Trail along Olney Ave
between 59th Ave and Loop 202 (0.30 mi)

59TH AVE 55TH AVE
56TH GLN
DOBBINS RD
Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
Proposed Change Area
w
v



58TH LN 57TH DR 55TH DR




ELLIOT RD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-1-25-7 (Trails) ACRES: REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: LAVEEN COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 8/26/2025
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Existing Trails



59TH AVE 55TH AVE
56TH GLN
DOBBINS RD




Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
w
v



58TH LN 57TH DR 55TH DR
Proposed Change Area


95.86 +/-


ELLIOT RD

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Remove Muti-Use Trail along Olney Ave
between 59th Ave and Loop 202 (0.30 mi)

59TH AVE 55TH AVE
56TH GLN
DOBBINS RD
Multi-Use Trail
Shared-Use Path
Proposed Change Area
w
v



58TH LN 57TH DR 55TH DR




ELLIOT RD
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 9, 2025
Request From Commercial / Commerce/Business Park and
Commercial
Request To Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal A minor general plan amendment to allow commercial
and multifamily residential and remove of the Multi-Use
Trail located along the Olney Avenue alignment
Location Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road

VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item No. 7 (GPA-LV-1-25-7) and Agenda Item No. 8 (Z-29-25-7) were heard
together.

Four members of the public registered to speak on these items.

Applicant Presentation:

Nick Wood, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, introduced himself and
the Vestar company, the developers of the proposed PUD. Mr. Wood provided
numerous examples of other Vestar projects including Desert Ridge and Tempe
Market Place. Mr. Wood displayed the site and noted that a portion of the site would
be located within the village core. Mr. Wood described the proposed layout, citing the
commercial uses along Dobbins Road and the multifamily development located in the
southern portion of the site. Mr. Wood displayed the proposed commercial and
residential renderings and noted the enhanced architectural features. Mr. Wood
concluded his presentation by voicing his excitement for development within the
village core.

Questions From the Committee:

Ms. Abegg voiced her excitement and stated that she looked forward to how the
property would develop. Ms. Abegg liked the mix of uses and noted that her goal was
to have everything in writing within the PUD.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor voiced his concerns regarding the timeline of the proposal. Mr.
Nassr-Taylor noted that Councilwomen Ansari had been promoting Vestar and that

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 302
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7 – Information Only
June 6, 2025

Mr. Nasser-Taylor voiced his concerns regarding the timeline of the proposal. Mr.
Nassr-Taylor noted that Councilwomen Ansari had been promoting Vestar and that
there would be development within the next couple of years. Mr. Nasser-Taylor liked
all the hypothetical renderings but added that he would like to see a real site plan to
demonstrate the configuration of the site and the proposed commercial spaces. Mr.
Nasser-Taylor noted that he did not want the commercial portion to be built with
houses. Mr. Nasser-Taylor voiced his concerns regarding the height and noted that a
lot of members of the community chose to live in the area because of the scenic
views.

Jeff Axtell, with Vestar, noted that they have successfully contracted the first anchor
store for the commercial portion of the PUD. Mr. Axtell stated that the first commercial
project will include a theater and arcade company which will attract sit down
restaurants.

Mr. Serrette asked if there would be enough capacity based on the demand. Mr.
Axtell noted that there would be 30 acres of commercial land.

Ms. Darby stated that she would like better sit-down restaurants. Mr. Axtell noted that
they are working hard to provide the expected commercial and restaurants expected
by the community.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked for the total number of units allowed versus what is proposed
and asked how many units will be for rent and for purchase. Mr. Axtell noted that they
are proposing less than the total number of units allowed and that they are currently
rental developments.

Co-Vice Chair Francisco Barraza thanked the applicant for their presentation and
noted that he liked the displayed rendering that included a water tower. Co-Vice Chair
Barraza did note that he looked forward to more information regarding ingress and
egress from the site and any proposed traffic signals.

Chair Hurd stated that this development will be very huge for the Village but noted
that they still needed to be engaged in the outreach and will be reviewing the PUD
Narrative in detail before they came back for recommendation.

Public Comment:

Mr. Hertel stated that this would be a great project and that he was looking forward to
the project moving forward. Mr. Hertel voiced his appreciation for Nick Wood and
noted that he trusted him.

Mr. Kimoto noted that Laveen has been previously known as mediocre. Mr. Kimoto
stated that Vestar is known for high quality development and that he would be happy if
they were able to achieve anything remotely close to those successful developments.
Mr. Kimoto stated that this development will raise the value of Laveen and that he

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 303
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7 – Information Only
June 6, 2025

looks forward to its completion.

Mr. Penton stated that the applicant has met with the LCRD and that the LCRD
supports the project. Mr. Penton did note the importance of the Dobbins Road
streetscape and the need for diverse commercial and dining opportunities. Mr. Penton
voiced his excitement and noted that they have waited over 20 years for this type of
development.

Mr. Bridgeman liked the proposed development but noted that he would like this
development to stand out or have features that differ from Desert Ridge or Tempe
Market Place. Mr. Bridgeman wanted the design features to reflect the Laveen
character. Mr. Bridgeman asked if condos and townhomes would be allowed. Mr.
Axtell confirmed. Mr. Bridgeman stated that he would like a portion of the commercial
space to be reserved for local businesses within the Laveen community.

Applicant Response:

Mr. Axtell stated that they have a very high-quality architectural design and noted that
even though it might look like Desert Ridge or Tempe Market Place, it will have
features that would reflect the Laveen character. Mr. Axtell added that here will be
numerous common areas and extensive shading.

Mr. Wood addressed the site plan comment by stating that the PUD does not have a
long list of permitted uses and that a site plan would only be created once all
commercial businesses are confirmed. Mr. Wood noted that a village core typically
allowed for higher density and an increase in height. Mr. Wood added that there were
stepback provisions for the height.

Committee Discussion:

Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted that he was just expressing his concerns because he
wanted to ensure that the applicant knew their expectations. Mr. Nasser-Taylor also
did not want the applicant to promise all sorts of improvements and then sell the land
after the PUD is approved. Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that he just wanted the applicant
to be respectful of the Laven character and heritage.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 304
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7

Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Request From Commercial / Commerce/Business Park and
Commercial
Request To Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal A minor general plan amendment to allow commercial
and multifamily residential and remove of the Multi-Use
Trail located along the Olney Avenue alignment
Location Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 11-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 3 (GPA-LV-1-25-7) and Item No. 4 (Z-29-25-7) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, presented an overview of GPA-LV-1-25-7 and Z-29-25-7.
Mrs. Sanchez Luna discussed the location of the site, the requested zoning
designation, and the surrounding land uses. Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview
of the proposed development including proposed uses for each development unit. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the staff findings,
correspondence, providing the staff recommendation and proposed stipulations.

Applicant Presentation:

Nick Wood, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, introduced himself and
added that he had worked rezoning cases within the Laveen Village over 23 years
ago. Mr. Wood provided some historic information regarding the Village Core and
noted that the applicant, Vestar and BRIO, would be the perfect fit for the area. David
Larcher, representing Vestar, voiced his excitement for the proposal and noted that
Vestar had done numerous successful shopping centers such as Tempe Marketplace
and Desert Ridge Marketplace. Mr. Larcher added that Vestar took pride in enhanced
development. Mr. Larcher provided background information such as acreage,
proposed development, and design layout. Mr. Larcher noted the enhanced green
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 305
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7
September 8, 2025

space that would be used to host promotional events and all pedestrian
enhancements such as trails and shading. Mr. Larcher summarized the proposed
residential uses and added noted all the street improvements. Mr. Wood displayed
Stipulation No. 6 from the rezoning case and noted the need to modify the language.
Mr. Wood stated that SRP protected their assets carefully, and that they did not want
to create any delays in construction. Mr. Wood displayed the proposed language and
requested that the Committee modify the stipulation.

Questions From the Committee:

Kristi McCann asked for more information regarding street improvements. Ms.
McCann noted the road medians and asked who would be installing the landscaping
within the street medians and who would maintain the landscaping once it has been
constructed.

Chair Stephanie Hurd requested all committee members to ask their questions first
and then the applicant would answer.

Andre Serrette and Juanita Darby stated that they did not have any questions.

Carlos Ortega noted that on page 36 of the PUD narrative there was a picture of a
four-story multifamily building. Mr. Ortega asked if their proposal consisted of four-
story multifamily buildings. Mr. Larcher stated that multifamily residential would be
permitted up to 4 stories within a certain setback. Mr. Ortega stated that the Village
preferred two to three-story buildings. Chair Hurd, Co-Vice Chair Jensen, Co-Vice
Chair Barraza, and Linda Abegg stated that the proposal was located within the
Village Core which would support additional height. Mr. Ortega added that on Exhibit
2 in the PUD Narrative, the proposed General Plan Land Use Map showed a larger
area than that displayed in the existing General Plan Land Use Map exhibit. Chair
Hurd requested staff to display the existing and proposed General Plan Land Use
Map exhibit. Mr. Ortega pointed to the site and the adjacent property and noted that
they were the same designation and asked if the boundary was being modified. Tom
Burchett, representing BRIO Investments, stated that the boundary would not be
modified. Mr. Wood added that the crosshatch would support residential and
commercial development. Mr. Ortega asked what type of residential would be
proposed within the development. Chair Hurd noted that the applicant was proposing
multifamily development in the middle section of the site.

Mixen Rubio-Raffin asked for more information on what is planned to replace the
multi-use trail on the west side of the site. Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked what else could be
done to integrate the historic farmhouse into the development. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
suggested possibly putting a fence around the house and keeping it as a monument.

Jennifer Rouse stated that she did not have any comments.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 306
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7
September 8, 2025

Michael Doromal asked for more information regarding access and road
improvements. Mr. Doromal noted that there seemed to be a gap in the proposed
improvements.

Linda Abegg stated that Laveen has been asking for a shopping and entertainment
center such as a movie theater. Ms. Abegg appreciated all the effort that was put into
the PUD Narrative and appreciated the time spent addressing community and
committee concerns. Ms. Abegg thanked staff and added that not everyone got what
they wanted but that this PUD would benefit Laveen.

Vice Chair Francisco Barraza voiced his agreement with Committee Member
Abegg’s comments.

Co-Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen thanked the applicant for everything they had told the
committee and added that she was out of town and had a few questions. Co-Vice
Chair Jensen asked for clarification on access conditions between the commercial and
residential parcels. Co-Vice Chair Jensen noted that on page 27, there was some
inconsistencies between gated and ungated and private and public accessways and
asked for clarification. Co-Vice Chair Jensen asked if there will be a connection
provided for because one of the Village goals has been to connect neighborhoods.
Co-Vice Chair asked for more information regarding EV parking and more information
on proposed amenities and open space for multifamily and single-family residential
development. Co-Vice Chair Jensen asked for more information regarding mobile
vending and the promotional events. Co-Vice Chair Jensen requested smoke shops
and vape shops be added to the prohibited list and asked for more information
regarding the zero-foot perimeter setback on the south portion of the site.

Chair Hurd noted that she appreciated the way they have integrated portions of the
Hudson Farmhouse into the development and that she really liked the palm trees and
cooling stations within the pedestrian paths.

Mr. Larcher stated that the multi-use trail on the Onley alignment had to be removed
because it would lead to ADOT retention adjacent to the Loop 202 Freeway. Mr.
Larcher confirmed that there would be an extensive pedestrian circulation plan with
connections. Mr. Larcher noted that the shared use path will be moved to the east side
of the site along 59th Avenue. Mr. Larcher added that the median landscaping will be
provided by their contractors but that the median will belong to the City. Mr. Larcher
stated that they will be improving the half street adjacent to their property. Mr. Larcher
added that some development will be gated but would have access to pedestrian
connections. Mr. Larcher added that they will not be building brick walls around the
residential portion. Tom Burchett, with BRIO Development, added that they will be
providing EV parking in their multifamily development. Mr. Larcher added that the
open space within the commercial portion would allow for mobile food or coffee trucks
once a month. Mr. Larcher noted that this way they will constantly be attracting more
individuals even on days when there isn’t a farmers market.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 307
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7
September 8, 2025

Mr. Larcher noted that he was confident that they could add smoke and vape shops to
the prohibited list. Mr. Larcher concluded his response by adding that the zero setback
would add flexibility but that the entire property would not be at zero-foot setback.

Mr. Wood stated that they will be providing numerous amenities within the residential
portion and utilize portions of the Hudson Farmhouse within the commercial area. Mr.
Burchett emphasized that he did not plan on selling a multifamily portion of the
development and that his company was known for high quality product. Mr. Burchett
displayed numerous amenities in existing multifamily development including waterfalls,
splash pads, and ramadas with grilling stations.

Public Comment:

Phil Hertel stated that he has worked with Nick Wood for over 25 years and that Mr.
Wood was a very honest and forthcoming man and that the community should trust
him. Mr. Hertel emphasized that this was one of the best projects in Laveen and that
he guaranteed that this was not a bait and switch.

Amanda McBride noted that she just found out about the project on social media and
was opposed to the inappropriate change. Ms. McBride noted that out of 90 acres only
a third of it would be for commercial use and that the proposed open space was very
small and didn’t allow enough room for kids to play. Ms. McBride added that palm
trees were a horrible choice for vegetation due to the lack of shade and water
consumption. Ms. McBride expressed that more commercial space needed to be
conserved so residents would stop going to Ahwatukee for amenities. Ms. McBride
noted that people don’t want to move to Laveen because of the lack of commercial
development. Ms. McBride concluded her statement by adding that residents must
drive several minutes to the nearest grocery store and medical office and that she
agreed to add vape and smoke shops to the prohibited list.

Chair Hurd asked Ms. McBride how she found out about the development. Ms.
McBride noted that she had seen a post on Facebook by Dan Penton.

Marty Bridgman stated that he was supportive of the development but asked how the
material of the Hudson Farmhouse would be used and what type of lighting would be
used within the development. Mr. Larcher stated that they will be using some of the
concrete and stone into the walkways and that the lighting will be positioned to light
downward.

Jon Kimoto noted that he was in favor of the item and that he trusted the land use
attorney. Mr. Kimoto stated that this proposed development will break the mold of
mediocre commercial development that the village has seen throughout the years. Mr.
Kimoto stated that he was impressed with the design quality and the amount of
commercial.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 308
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-1-25-7
September 8, 2025

Applicant Response:

Mr. Larcher stated that the palm trees will only be in the entryway of the commercial
development, similar to the commercial development in Tempe Market Place and
Desert Ridge. Mr. Larcher added that palm trees will only consist of 10 percent of all
landscaping. Mr. Larcher noted that there would be numerous cooling stations
throughout the pedestrian paths and that they requested the modification to Stipulation
No. 6 in order to prevent any delays in construction.

Committee Discussion:

Chair Hurd asked if anyone else had any questions. Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked for
clarification regarding bike racks and if they were going to be required. Mr. Larcher
confirmed. Chair Hurd stated that the bike racks should be designed to have design
features instead of basic inverted Us.

Ms. Abegg asked for confirmation that the stipulation will be added and modified in
the rezoning case and not the General Plan Amendment case. Chair Hurd confirmed.

Vice Chair Jensen stated that she appreciated the architectural design of the single-
family and multifamily development. Co-Vice Chair Jensen appreciated the Laveen
heavy duty agrarian culture and noted that the proposed development did a good job
of mixing modern while keeping the style agrarian.

Motion:
Linda Abegg motioned to recommend approval of GPA-LV-1-25-7, per the staff
recommendation. Jennifer Rouse second the motion.

Vote:
11-0, motion to recommend approval of GPA-LV-1-25-7, per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members Abegg, Darby, Doromal, McCann, Ortega, Rouse,
Rubio-Raffin, Serrette, Barraza, Jensen, and Hurd in favor.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 309
ATTACHMENT D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
OCTOBER 6, 2025

ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 7
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-LV-1-25-7 (Companion Case Z-29-25-7)
Location: Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road
Request 1): Land Use Map Amendment
From: Commercial and Commercial / Commerce/Business Park
To: Commercial / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Request 2): Trail Map Amendment
Removal of the multi-use trail along the Olney Avenue alignment.
Acreage: 95.86
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow commercial and multifamily
residential; and an update to the City Trails Map removing the multi-use
trail along the Olney Avenue alignment.
Applicant: Vestar
Owner: Cold Springs, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 6/9/2025 Information only.
Laveen 9/8/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee
recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Odegard-Begay made a MOTION to approve GPA-LV-1-25-7, per
the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Odegard-Begay
Second: James
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Hu
Opposition Present: No.

Findings:

1. The proposed land use map designation provides a land use mix that is appropriate
given the site is adjacent to the Loop 202 freeway and within the Village Core.

2. The companion rezoning case, Z-29-25-7, creates a unified zoning framework through
a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the entire site. This General Plan Amendment
will provide for a General Plan Land Use Map designation that is consistent with the
proposed PUD.
3. The companion rezoning case, Z-29-25-7, provides enhanced landscaping and shade
standards and enhanced development and design standards to make the proposed
development a compatible addition to the area and incorporate rural features.

4. The multi-use trail will not extend through the subject site and across the freeway;
furthermore, the property on the southwest corner of the site will be developed as
ADOT retention. The companion rezoning case Z-29-25-7 has a pedestrian circulation
plan with enhanced landscaping and shading.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-29-25-7 (The Laveen Towne Center PUD) -
Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road (Ordinance G-7445) -
District 7

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-29-25-
7 and rezone the site from S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park District, General Commerce
Park Option) and S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
to allow a mixed use project with commercial retail, multifamily residential, single-
family attached, and assisted living. This is a companion case to GPA-LV-1-25-7 and
should be heard following GPA-LV-1-25-7.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) (93.12 acres) and S-1 (1.99 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 95.11
Proposed Use: Mixed use project with commercial retail, multifamily residential, single-
family attached, and assisted living

Owner: Cold Springs, LLC
Applicant: Vestar
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this item on
June 9, 2025 for information only.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this item on September 8,
2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional
stipulations and a modification, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated October 6, 2025 with a deleted
stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.




Location
Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 9680 and 9900 S. 59th Avenue

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





ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SITE DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-29-25-7) FROM S-1 (APPROVED C-2/CP-GCP)
(RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE, APPROVED INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK DISTRICT, GENERAL
COMMERCE PARK OPTION) AND S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 95.11-acre site located at the southwest

corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road in a portion of Section 7, Township 1 South

Direction, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby

changed from 93.12 acres of “S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP)” (Ranch or Farm

Residence, Approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park District, General

Commerce Park Option) and 1.99 acres of “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) 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,

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 Laveen Towne 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 19, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations.

a. Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”

b. Page 16, C. List of Uses, C3: Prohibited Uses, Development Area 1 and
Development Area 2: Add “Tobacco oriented retailers”.

c. Page 18, D. Development Standards, a. Development Area 1, 6. Minimum
Building Setbacks, Interior Property Lines: Modify both the commercial
and multifamily residential development standards as follows: “5’ adjacent
to Development Area 2.”

d. Page 32, D. Development Standards, D6: Shade, Third Paragraph: Modify
to state the following “Shading Exemption: Where utility conflicts,
easements, fire lane access, turning lanes, or other required infrastructure
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.”

e. Page 34, E. Design Guidelines, B. Architecture: Add a row that states the
following “Rooflines - building design for both the project’s residential and
commercial components shall separately incorporate a minimum of two
(2) unique rooflines (gable, flat, hip, shed, etc,) to create visual diversity.”

2. The property owner, or designee, shall provide biannual land development
updates and status for development within the PUD, starting six months after City
Council approval to the Laveen Village Planning Committee until all development
areas have preliminary site plan approval.

3. The developer shall construct two bus pads conforming with Standard Detail


P1260 on southbound 59th Avenue, 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile south of Dobbins
Road. The bus pads shall be located on the far side of intersections according to
standard detail P1258.

4. At the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road, the developer shall
construct a bus bay on southbound 59th Avenue. The bay shall be constructed
according to Standard Detail P1256 with an attached pad.

5. The developer shall submit a Master Street Plan (MSP), as required by the
Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation Department, prior to preliminary site plan approval.

6. A minimum of 55 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Dobbins Road flaring to 70 feet to accommodate a flared intersection, and the full
limits of Dobbins Road shall be constructed, as required by the accepted traffic
impact study dated July 3, 2025.

7. A minimum of 55 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of 59th
Avenue flaring to 70 feet to accommodate a flared intersection, and the roadway
shall be constructed, as required by the accepted traffic impact study dated July
3, 2025.

8. All mitigation improvements shall be constructed and/or funded as identified in
the accepted traffic impact analysis dated July 3, 2025.

9. Construction of right-of-way improvements shall comply with the approved
development agreement (S-49318) dated June 14, 2024.

10. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated to accommodate any portion of the
required minimum width for the Shared Use Path along 59th Avenue that extends
beyond the right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

11. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall to coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

12. Existing SRP facilities along Dobbins Road are to be relocated outside of City
right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Street Transportation
Department. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.

13. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.



14. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________


_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-29-25-7

LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER
BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT A BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE MARKING THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, FROM WHICH THE NORTH QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 7 IS MARKED WITH A BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE, BEARING SOUTHS
89°51'43" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2641.14 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, SOUTH
89°51'43" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 00°22'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;

THENCE ALONG A LINE 33 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE
OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, SOUTH 00°22'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
2,606.55 FEET;

THENCE ALONG A LINE 33 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SOUTH 00°22'17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
1,330.91 FEET;

THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST PARALLEL LINE, SOUTH 89°42'47" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 313.02 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF A.D.O.T. LOOP
202 AS SHOWN ON RIGHT OF WAY PLANS 202L MA 000 H 5439 / MA 056 H8827;

THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, NORTH 00°21'32" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 1,330.69 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89°47'27" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,028.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00°11'59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2,448.80 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89°51'43" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 205.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 14°05'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 165.07 FEET;

THENCE ALONG A LINE 33 FEET SOUTH OF A PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, NORTH 89°51'43" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 1,514.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINS 3,954,961 SQUARE FEET OR 90.793 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.


ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-29-25-7
(The Laveen Towne Center PUD)
September 5, 2025

Laveen Village Planning Committee September 8, 2025
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 6, 2025

Request From: S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) (Ranch or
Farm Residence, Approved Intermediate
Commercial or Commerce Park District,
General Commerce Park Option) (93.12
acres) and S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
(1.99 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (95.11
acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Unit Development to allow a
mixed use project with commercial retail,
multifamily residential, single-family
attached, and assisted living
Location: Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and
Dobbins Road
Owner: Cold Springs, LLC
Applicant: Vestar
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity
Current: Commercial / Commerce /
Business Park (52.30 acres) and
Commercial (43.56 acres), Village Core
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Pending (GPA-LV-1-25-7): Commercial /
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
(95.86 acres), Village Core




Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025


Dobbins Road Arterial 33-feet south half street
Street Map
Classification
59th Avenue Arterial 33-foot west half street



STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; ENTREPRENEURS AND
EMERGING ENTERPRISES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Encourage land uses that
promote the growth of entrepreneurs or new businesses in Phoenix in
appropriate locations.
The proposed PUD will add commercial, employment opportunities, and additional housing
within the Laveen Village Core and in close proximity to the Loop 202 freeway. Development
Area 1 of the PUD promotes a wide range of commercial uses that will activate the Village
Core.

CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Provide high quality urban
design and amenities that reflect the best of urban living at an appropriate
village scale.

The proposal is located within the Laveen Village Core and includes numerous
amenities such as a continuous open space to host promotional event that reflect
urban living. In addition, the proposal includes enhanced design guidelines to reflect
the character of the Village.


CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate land uses with
the greatest height and most intense uses within village cores, centers and
corridors based on village character, land use needs, and transportation system
capacity.

The PUD proposal incorporates retail shopping, entertainment, multi-story residential
uses, and facades that reflect the agrigarian character of the Laveen Village. The
proposed intensity of uses and enhancements are appropriate due to proximity to the
Loop 202 freeway and location within the Village Core.


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 PUD Narrative incorporates enhanced landscaping and shade standards
throughout the site that will help to provide shade for pedestrians and mitigate the
urban heat island effect by covering hard surfaces thus cooling the micro-climate
around the vicinity.



Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025


Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Laveen Southwest Growth Study: Background Item No. 6.

Housing Plan Phoenix: Background Item No. 7.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 8.

Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 9.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No.10.

Shade Phoenix Plan: Background Item No. 11.

Monarch Butterfly: Background Item No. 12.

Conservation Measures for New Development: Background Item No. 13.

Phoenix Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 14.

Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 15.



Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Agricultural land S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP)
North (Across Dobbins
Vacant land S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP)
Road)
Agricultural and
vacant land (proposed C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR,
multifamily residential S-1 (Approved C-2
East (Across 59th Avenue)
and commercial) and HGT/WVR PCD, R-3A PCD,
single-family and R1-6 PCD), and R1-10
residential
Vacant land
South (proposed multifamily C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR
residential)
West ADOT retention S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP)
Southwest ADOT retention S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP)

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 95.11 acres located on the southwest corner of 59th
Avenue and Dobbins Road from 93.12 acres of S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP)

Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

(Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce
Park District, General Commerce Park Option) and 1.99 acres of S-1 (Ranch or
Farm Residence) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow a mixed use
project with commercial retail, multifamily residential, single-family attached, and
assisted living. The proposed PUD will activate the Laveen Village Core and
provide additional housing within the Laveen Village. The site currently consists of
vacant land with a historic structure known as the historic Hudson Farmhouse.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The property to the north, across
Dobbins Road, is agricultural
land zoned S-1 (Approved C-
2/CP-GCP) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved
Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, General
Commerce Park Option).

The properties to the east,
across 59th Avenue, are
currently agricultural and vacant
land but are proposed as a mix of
commercial and multifamily
residential with an open space
area. This area is zoned C-2
HGT/WVR DNS/WVR
(Intermediate Commercial,
Height and Density Waiver) and
S-1 (Approved R-3A PCD)
(Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Multifamily Residence
District, Planned Community Existing Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
District) and
S-1 (Approved R1-6 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family
Residence District, Planned Community District) and a small segment of C-2
HGT/WVR PCD (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, Planned Community
District).

South of the subject site is vacant land proposed as multifamily residential and is
zoned C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver,
Density Waiver).

The properties to the west and southwest of the PUD boundary are vacant an
serve as ADOT retention for the Loop 202 freeway. These properties are zoned
S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Intermediate
Commercial or Commerce Park District, General Commerce Park Option).


Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The northern portion of the subject site is designated Commercial and the
southern portion is designated as Commercial / Commerce/Business Park.

North of the subject site, across Dobbins Road, is designated Commercial.

The properties to the east, across 59th Avenue, are designated Mixed Use,
Preserves/Commercial, Parks/Open Space / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, and Parks/Open Space / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre. The
single-family residential development located south of Olney Avenue is
designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.

The properties to the south are designated Commercial / Commerce/Business
Park.

The properties to the west of the subject site are owned by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) and are designed Commercial and
Commercial / Commerce/Business Park.

A concurrent minor General Plan Land Use Map amendment, GPA-LV-1-25-7, is
proposed to change the land use map designation to Commercial / Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre. The requested PUD zoning is consistent with the
proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations.




Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025




General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department

The minor General Plan Land Use Map amendment also proposes the deletion of
a portion of the designated multi-use trail along the Olney Avenue alignment
between the Loop 202 freeway and west of 59th Avenue. The Loop 202 freeway
prevents the the multi-use trail from crossing to the west side of the freeway.




Trails Map, Existing and Proposed
Source: Snell & Willmer

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.

5. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described
in the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped August 19, 2025. The
Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

proposed standards were designed to allow commercial, multifamily residential,
single-family residential, and assisted living uses that would generate housing
and a create a community asset within the Laveen Village Core.

Conceptual Development Plan and Permitted Uses
The PUD proposes a regulatory
framework structured around the
creation of splitting the subject site into
two development areas. Development
Area 1 is located on the north portion of
the subject site. Development Area 1
allows a mixture of commercial and
multifamily uses. However, multifamily
residential development is prohibited
within the first 1,020 feet south of
Dobbins Road. This would ensure that
a portion of Development Area 1 is
developed solely as commercial.

In general, the commercial uses
proposed are consistent with C-2 uses,
with some flexibility related to
restaurants, bars, and promotional
events. The PUD Narrative delineates a
continuous open space area called
Laveen Village Green with an area of
5,000 square feet. This open space will
allow for promotional outdoor events
such as a movie night, live music, food
vendors, and customer attraction
activities. The Laveen Village Green
will also include an informational
podium on the Hudson family and farm
operations and two agricultural
structures. There are several prohibited
uses, such as but not limited to, adult Development Areas
oriented uses, hospitals, and self- Source: The Laveen Towne Center PUD
storage. Narrative

Development Area 2 is located on the southern portion of the subject site and
located along 59th Avenue, south of the Olney Avenue alignment. This
development area allows assisted living, multifamily residential, and single-family
attached or detached residential uses. The range of allowed residential uses in
Development Area 2 would allow aging in place.




Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

Development Standards
The PUD development narrative proposes a unique set of development standards
for Development Areas 1 and 2. A summary of the standards are provided below.

Development Standard Development Unit 1 Development Unit 2
Maximum Units 1,286 units 170 units
Minimum Lot Width None None for multifamily,
20 feet for single-
family attached,
30 feet for single-
family detached-rear
loaded,
40 feet for single-
family detached-front
loaded,
45 feet for all other
lots
Minimum Perimeter Building and Landscape Setbacks
North (Adjacent to Dobbins Average 30 feet; Adjacent to
Road) minimum 20 feet Development Area 1:
permitted for up to 0 feet
25% of the frontage
East (Adjacent to 59th Average 30 feet; Average 30 feet;
Avenue) minimum 20 feet minimum 20 feet
permitted for up to permitted for up to
25% of the frontage 25% of the frontage
South Adjacent to 0 feet
Commercial: 0
Adjacent to
Multifamily: 5
West (adjacent to ADOT 0 feet 0 feet
ROW)
Minimum Interior Building Setbacks
Front 0 feet 10 feet
Rear 0 feet 0 feet
Side 0 feet 0 feet
Street side 0 feet 10 feet
Adjacent to Development 5 feet 5 feet
Area 2
Maximum Building Height 56 feet or 4 stories 45 feet or 3 stories for
Plus stepbacks single-family,
adjacent to 59th 56 feet or 4 stories for
Avenue and Dobbins multifamily and
Road assisted living




Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

Development Standard Development Unit 1 Development Unit 2
Maximum Lot Coverage 60% 60%
Minimum Open Space 5%; With at least one 10% for multifamily
area no less than and 5% for single-
5,000 contiguous family
open space

Some of the building and landscape setbacks are reduced from typical Zoning
Ordinance standards. However, several of the PUD standards exceed the Zoning
Ordinance standards, such as open space, shading, and enhanced landscaping
on street frontages.

Staff recommends updating the building setbacks for interior property lines to
provide clarity. The intent is to provide a 5-foot setback between development
areas. As a result, the stipulation would require the development standards to be
updated for both commercial and multifamily development. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 1.b.

Landscape Standards
The PUD narrative proposes numerous landscaping enhancements that include
landscaping buffers, shading along public sidewalks, and enhanced planting
standards that exceed the Zoning Ordinance standards. The landscaping will
provide for a pedestrian-friendly environment with 75 percent shade on Dobbins
Road and 59th Avenue, exceeding the minimum requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Furthermore, all landscape setbacks and buffers will have trees
consisting of 50 percent 2-inch caliper trees and 50 percent 3-inch caliper single-
trunk, drought tolerant, shade trees. All interior landscaped areas including
landscape setbacks will be required to provide a minimum of 2-inch caliper shade
trees.

Furthermore, Development Area 1 will contain a continuous area of a minimum of
5,000 square feet of common space called the Laveen Village Green.

An internal pedestrian pathway system is also required within the PUD. The
pedestrian pathways will provide a shaded environment with 75 percent shade,
exceeding the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All internal
pedestrian pathways must be shaded utilizing 2-inch caliper trees. An enhanced
pedestrian link is required to connect the commercial and residential portion of
Development Area 1 will require 2-inch caliper shade trees to achieve 75 percent
shade.

The required commercial and residential development have a minimum parking
area landscape requirement of 5 percent. The Zoning Ordinance typically
requires a minimum of 10 percent for commercial parking lots. While the Zoning
Ordinance does not address shade requirements in parking lots and only
mandates the provision of landscape areas as previously noted, the PUD
Narrative goes further by committing to a minimum of 25 percent shading for
parking areas.
Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025


The landscape standards within the PUD narrative exceed the requirements in
the Zoning Ordinance in most cases and will mitigate the urban heat island effect
by covering hard surfaces.

Parking Standards
The PUD proposes to comply with the Zoning Ordinance minimum parking
standards per Section 702.E with the exception that the combined depth of
parking space and drive aisle width shall equal 60 feet for a double loaded aisle
and 43 feet for a single-loaded aisle, rather than the Zoning Ordinance
requirement of 62 feet for double loaded aisles.

The PUD also requires bicycle parking within all development units. Development
Area 1 is required to provide a minimum of eight bicycle spaces near the building
entrances for buildings less than 5,000 square feet. For buildings larger than
5,000 square feet, Development Area 1 is required to provide 1 bicycle space per
25 required vehicle parking spaces with a maximum of 20 spaces required.
Development Area 2 requires all multifamily development to provide 1 bicycle
parking space per 25 required vehicle parking spaces with a maximum of 50
spaces. Furthermore, bicycle parking areas shall be shaded a minimum of 75
percent.

The PUD Narrative also includes a requirement for EV parking within
Development Unit 1 and 2. A minimum of 50 required parking spaces shall be EV
Capable within Development Area 1 and individual developments in Development
Area 2 are required to provide a minimum of five EV Installed parking spaces.

Design Guidelines
The Development Narrative includes design standards for non-residential
buildings, multifamily residential and single-family development. Non-residential
buildings are required to have a minimum of 20 percent glazing and minimum of
two accent materials totaling 25 percent of the building façade. Some of the
accent materials include architectural concrete, simulated wood, and non-
reflective metal. Multifamily residential and single-family residential development
must have a minimum of two accent materials totaling 25 percent of the building
façade. Accent materials that need to be incorporated into the buildings include
composite paneling, metal, real or simulated wood, and architectural concrete.
Furthermore, blank walls shall not exceed 50 feet of horizontal dimension without
a variation in texture.

Architecture within the PUD must reflect the historical agricultural character of the
Laveen Village. All buildings within the PUD must have a variety of rooflines
ranging from pitched, flat, and single-angle roofs in order to create diversity.
Materials such as concrete, steel, and metal are all encouraged in order to
achieve the historic agrarian design.

Fences/Walls
The PUD Narrative notes that an eight-foot-tall CMU fence shall be provided
Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

along the west perimeter of the PUD boundary, adjacent to ADOT right-of-way.
Furthermore, all walls along 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road shall have a
maximum length of 25 feet of continuous plan and include changes in materials,
use of artwork, or other design features.

Shade
The Development Narrative includes a range from 50 to 75 percent shade cover
to be provided over public sidewalks, depending on the area. The required shade
standards along many of the public sidewalks exceed the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.

Staff recommends updating the shading exception regarding utility conflicts to be
consistent with the rest of the shading requirements in the development
standards. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1.c.

Signage
This section of the PUD Narrative includes provisions for on-premise signage and
new residential monumentation. This site is not eligible for off-premise signs. The
site is not within 300 feet of a freeway. The proposed PUD shall follow a
Comprehensive Sign Plan approval per Section 705.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Sustainability
The Development Narrative requires several sustainability principals within the
development. Below is a highlight of some of the options:

• EV parking.
• Smart irrigation controllers shall be utilized within the development.
• Natural turf shall only be used for required retention areas.
• Two green infrastructure techniques.
• Utilizing the Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List.
• For single-family residential subdivisions, natural turf shall not be utilized
on individual single-family lots.




Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND INITIATIVES
6. Laveen Southwest Growth
Study
The site is located within the
boundaries of the Laveen
Southwest Growth Study, which
was developed in 1997 to
analyze the existing conditions of
the Laveen Village and provide a
land use and design planning
framework to help shape the
growth that Laveen was starting
to experience, while accounting
for newly annexed farmland as
well as the future development of
the South Mountain Freeway
Loop, which has since been
completed. This plan designates
the project site Commercial and
Commerce Park.
The majority of the subject site is
consistent with the Laveen
Southwest Growth Study Land
Use Map designation. The
proposed multifamily residential
designations, although not
consistent with the designation of
Commerce Park, will provide a
mix of housing opportunities Laveen Southwest Growth Study Land Use Map
within the Laveen Village Core. Source: Planning and Development Department
The Laveen Southwest Growth Study also outlines specific design policies and
standards for various types of development that will enhance Laveen’s built
environment while remaining respectful of its agricultural heritage. The study
encourages all new development to use durable, high quality building materials
and to provide enhanced building design that will contribute to the character of
the area. The Development Narrative proposes a variety of building materials on
future buildings with a focus on maintaining the character of the area.

7. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s
rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for
housing units. The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving
or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing
types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using
underutilized land in a more sustainable fashion.
Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025


8. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, and connected transportation system to include all modes, such
as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The PUD proposed several
provisions that are consistent with Complete Streets Guiding Principles including
detached sidewalks along street frontages to promote a safe pedestrian
atmosphere. Additionally, a Complete Streets section is included in the narrative
which includes pedestrian pathways which will allow for multi-modal mobility, and
design techniques to reduce direct sunlight exposure to pedestrians and cyclists.
Furthermore, a shared use path will be provided along the west side of 59th
Avenue. This would allow for a larger multi-modal pedestrian environment along
59th Avenue that connects to other trails in the area.

9. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile
manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within
the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a
future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and
outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs
of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public
adoption of electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily
charging infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to
provide EV charging infrastructure. The Development Narrative contains
requirements for electrical vehicle parking for non-residential and residential uses.

10. 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 Development Narrative includes bicycle parking provisions in
all development areas.

11. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan.
The Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the
City to improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the
urban heat island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent
health complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix
Plan provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and developing
Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

shade stipulations in rezoning cases. The Development Narrative requires a 75
percent shade on all adjacent perimeter public sidewalks, enhanced shade on
internal pathways, and larger tree sizes within the landscape areas between the
back of curb and sidewalk. These standards exceed the minimum Zoning
Ordinance requirements.

12. Monarch Butterfly
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's
Mayor's Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support
the monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is
a major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of
milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers,
but they breed only where milkweeds are found. To support the monarch butterfly
population, the PUD narrative addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs, or
other native nectar plant species, on the subject site.

13. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s
Five Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to - Build the
Sustainable Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New Development
policy includes direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for
all rezoning cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine
specific categories. The PUD Narrative has numerous conservation measures for
the proposed commercial and residential uses. All development within the PUD
will utilize the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-
Tolerant Plant List for vegetation, smart irrigation controllers, limitations on the
use of natural turf, and Green Stormwater Infrastructure features to reduce water
waste.

14. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative
Stormwater Management to benefit the environment, promote water
conservation, reduce urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional
green spaces. This goal is addressed the Sustainability portion of the PUD
Narrative. A minimum of two green infrastructure techniques for stormwater
managements shall be implemented.

15. Zero Waste PHX
Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

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 does not address trash and recycling
receptacles on site. However, the City provides recycling service to single-family
residential developments.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
16. As of the writing of this report no letters of support or opposition have been
received for the request.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
17. The Street Transportation Department has requested the following stipulations:
• A sidewalk dedication to accommodate any portion of the required Shared
Use Path along 59th Avenue that extends beyond the right-of-way
(Stipulation No. 4).
• All utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded
(Stipulation No. 5).
• All existing SRP facilities along Dobbins Road shall be relocated outside of
City right-of-way (Stipulation No. 6).
• Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter (Stipulation No.
7).
• All streets shall be constructed with all required elements and to ADA
requirements (Stipulation No. 8).

18. The Public Transit Department has requested that two bus pads be provided
southbound on 59th Avenue located a quarter mile and a half mile south of
Dobbins Road. A bus bay shall be constructed at the southwest corner of 59th
Avenue and Dobbins Road on southbound 59th Avenue. This is addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3.

19. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City
of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 9.

20. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.

21. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and

Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.

Findings

1. The proposal is compatible with the existing land use pattern and is consistent
with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation and the Laveen
Village Core.

2. The proposal contains enhanced standards that will result in a more walkable,
shaded, and pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposal will provide increased
shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island effect.

3. The proposal will provide additional employment options, commercial services,
and housing opportunities within the Loop 202 Freeway corridor and the Laveen
village.

Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Laveen Towne 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 19, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations.

a. Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”

b. Page 18, D. Development Standards, a. Development Area 1, 6. Minimum
Building Setbacks, Interior Property Lines: Modify both the commercial
and multifamily residential development standards as follows: “5’ adjacent
to Development Area 2.”

c. Page 32, D. Development Standards, D6: Shade, Third Paragraph: Modify
to state the following “Shading Exemption: Where utility conflicts,
easements, fire lane access, turning lanes, or other required infrastructure
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.”

2. The developer shall construct two bus pads conforming with Standard Detail
P1260 on southbound 59th Avenue, 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile south of Dobbins
Road. The bus pads shall be located on the far side of intersections according to
standard detail P1258.

3. At the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road, the developer shall
construct a bus bay on southbound 59th Avenue. The bay shall be constructed
Staff Report: Z-29-25-7
September 5, 2025

according to Standard Detail P1256 with an attached pad.

4. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated to accommodate any portion of the
required minimum width for the Shared Use Path along 59th Avenue that
extends beyond the right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall to coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

6. Existing SRP facilities along Dobbins Road are to be relocated outside of City
right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Street Transportation
Department. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.

7. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

8. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

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. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
September 5, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
The Laveen Towne Center PUD date stamped August 19, 2025
S-1

C-2 HGT/WVR
PUD* PUD* DNS/WVR*
Z-41-21 R1-8* R1-8*
SIESTA WAY
Z-1-21 Z-35-21 GLN

55TH AVE
ANX 172 ANX 272


59TH AVE
C-1* ANX 272 Z-101-02

S-1 ANX 175
ANX 272
Z-62-02
56TH Z-62-02 Z-48-03

DOBBINS RD
R1-8 PRD AVE S-1
Z-67-08 ANX 500
PUD* C-2/CP-GCP 57TH
Z-79-01

MARICOPA
Z-73-22 C-2 HGT/WVR
DNS/WVR*
Z-45-22 C-2
PCD HGT/WVR*
Z-31-04

COUNTY
R-3A PCD *
S-1 Z-31-04 R1-10*
S-1 ANX 271
ANX 271 Z-28-03 Z-100-02
Z-100-02 R1-6 PCD *
Z-31-04 Z-27-19

R1-8 PCD * v
w
202 OLNEY AVE
R1-10 *
Z-180-04
R-2 PCD * C-2/CP-GCP C-2/CP-GCP Z-97-05


57TH DR
Z-180-04 Z-79-01 Z-79-01 S-1
GILA
58TH LN
Z-112-05
ANX 347
RIVER
C-2 HGT/WVR
INDIAN DNS/WVR* R-3*
Z-14-19 S-1* R1-6 PCD*
Z-23-23 C-2 SP* Z-46-18 Z-109-05
R-3*
C-2* Z-SP-3-22
RESERVATION
ANX 271

C-2/CP-GCP Z-22-22
Z-100-02
Z-22-21
R1-8* S-1
C-1* Z-49-17 ANX 314
Z-79-01
Z-14-19



¯ Miles
BROADWAY RD

SOUTHERN AVE

BASELINE RD

0 0.07 0.15 0.3
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD

ELLIOT RD

67TH AVE
LAVEEN VILLAGE ESTRELLA DR

59TH AVE
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7

51ST AVE
Z-29-25-7
27TH AVE
35TH AVE
43RD AVE


REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
FROM: S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) ( 93.12 ac.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO: Z-29-25-7 4/9/2025
REVISION DATES:
S-1 ( 1.99 ac.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
PUD ( 95.11 ac.)
95.11 Acres QS 03-14, QS 04-14 C-5
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP), S-1 93 (1350), 1 N/A (1620), N/A
PUD 1456 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 342
Path: \\one\pdd\Shared\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-29-25-7.aprx
S-1

C-2 HGT/WVR
PUD* PUD* DNS/WVR*
Z-41-21 R1-8* R1-8*
SIESTA WAY
Z-1-21 Z-35-21 GLN

55TH AVE
ANX 172 ANX 272


59TH AVE
C-1* ANX 272 Z-101-02

S-1 ANX 175
ANX 272
Z-62-02
56TH Z-62-02 Z-48-03

DOBBINS RD
R1-8 PRD AVE S-1
Z-67-08 ANX 500
PUD* C-2/CP-GCP 57TH
Z-79-01

MARICOPA
Z-73-22 C-2 HGT/WVR
DNS/WVR*
Z-45-22 C-2
PCD HGT/WVR*
Z-31-04

COUNTY
R-3A PCD *
S-1 Z-31-04 R1-10*
S-1 ANX 271
ANX 271 Z-28-03 Z-100-02
Z-100-02 R1-6 PCD *
Z-31-04 Z-27-19

R1-8 PCD * v
w
202 OLNEY AVE
R1-10 *
Z-180-04
R-2 PCD * C-2/CP-GCP C-2/CP-GCP Z-97-05


57TH DR
Z-180-04 Z-79-01 Z-79-01 S-1
GILA
58TH LN
Z-112-05
ANX 347
RIVER
C-2 HGT/WVR
INDIAN DNS/WVR* R-3*
Z-14-19 S-1* R1-6 PCD*
Z-23-23 C-2 SP* Z-46-18 Z-109-05
R-3*
C-2* Z-SP-3-22
RESERVATION
ANX 271

C-2/CP-GCP Z-22-22
Z-100-02
Z-22-21
R1-8* S-1
C-1* Z-49-17 ANX 314
Z-79-01
Z-14-19



¯ Miles
BROADWAY RD

SOUTHERN AVE

BASELINE RD

0 0.07 0.15 0.3
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD

ELLIOT RD

67TH AVE
LAVEEN VILLAGE ESTRELLA DR

59TH AVE
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7

51ST AVE
Z-29-25-7
27TH AVE
35TH AVE
43RD AVE


REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
FROM: S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) ( 93.12 ac.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO: Z-29-25-7 4/9/2025
REVISION DATES:
S-1 ( 1.99 ac.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
PUD ( 95.11 ac.)
95.11 Acres QS 03-14, QS 04-14 C-5
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP), S-1 93 (1350), 1 N/A (1620), N/A
PUD 1456 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 343
Path: \\one\pdd\Shared\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-29-25-7.aprx
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 9, 2025
Request From S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) and S-1
Request To PUD
Proposal Planned Unit Development to allow a mixed use project
with commercial retail, multifamily residential, single-
family attached, and assisted living
Location Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road

VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item No. 7 (GPA-LV-1-25-7) and Agenda Item No. 8 (Z-29-25-7) were heard
together.

Four members of the public registered to speak on these items.

Applicant Presentation:

Nick Wood, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, introduced himself and
the Vestar company, the developers of the proposed PUD. Mr. Wood provided
numerous examples of other Vestar projects including Desert Ridge and Tempe
Market Place. Mr. Wood displayed the site and noted that a portion of the site would
be located within the village core. Mr. Wood described the proposed layout, citing the
commercial uses along Dobbins Road and the multifamily development located in the
southern portion of the site. Mr. Wood displayed the proposed commercial and
residential renderings and noted the enhanced architectural features. Mr. Wood
concluded his presentation by voicing his excitement for development within the
village core.

Questions From the Committee:

Ms. Abegg voiced her excitement and stated that she looked forward to how the
property would develop. Ms. Abegg liked the mix of uses and noted that her goal was
to have everything in writing within the PUD.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor voiced his concerns regarding the timeline of the proposal. Mr.
Nassr-Taylor noted that Councilwomen Ansari had been promoting Vestar and that
there would be development within the next couple of years. Mr. Nasser-Taylor liked

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 344
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7 – Information Only
June 6, 2025

Nassr-Taylor noted that Councilwomen Ansari had been promoting Vestar and that
there would be development within the next couple of years. Mr. Nasser-Taylor liked
there would be development within the next couple of years. Mr. Nasser-Taylor liked
all the hypothetical renderings but added that he would like to see a real site plan to
demonstrate the configuration of the site and the proposed commercial spaces. Mr.
Nasser-Taylor noted that he did not want the commercial portion to be built with
houses. Mr. Nasser-Taylor voiced his concerns regarding the height and noted that a
lot of members of the community chose to live in the area because of the scenic
views.

Jeff Axtell, with Vestar, noted that they have successfully contracted the first anchor
store for the commercial portion of the PUD. Mr. Axtell stated that the first commercial
project will include a theater and arcade company which will attract sit down
restaurants.

Mr. Serrette asked if there would be enough capacity based on the demand. Mr.
Axtell noted that there would be 30 acres of commercial land.

Ms. Darby stated that she would like better sit-down restaurants. Mr. Axtell noted that
they are working hard to provide the expected commercial and restaurants expected
by the community.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked for the total number of units allowed versus what is proposed
and asked how many units will be for rent and for purchase. Mr. Axtell noted that they
are proposing less than the total number of units allowed and that they are currently
rental developments.

Co-Vice Chair Francisco Barraza thanked the applicant for their presentation and
noted that he liked the displayed rendering that included a water tower. Co-Vice Chair
Barraza did note that he looked forward to more information regarding ingress and
egress from the site and any proposed traffic signals.

Chair Hurd stated that this development will be very huge for the Village but noted
that they still needed to be engaged in the outreach and will be reviewing the PUD
Narrative in detail before they came back for recommendation.

Public Comment:

Mr. Hertel stated that this would be a great project and that he was looking forward to
the project moving forward. Mr. Hertel voiced his appreciation for Nick Wood and
noted that he trusted him.

Mr. Kimoto noted that Laveen has been previously known as mediocre. Mr. Kimoto
stated that Vestar is known for high quality development and that he would be happy if
they were able to achieve anything remotely close to those successful developments.
Mr. Kimoto stated that this development will raise the value of Laveen and that he

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 345
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7 – Information Only
June 6, 2025

looks forward to its completion.

Mr. Penton stated that the applicant has met with the LCRD and that the LCRD
supports the project. Mr. Penton did note the importance of the Dobbins Road
streetscape and the need for diverse commercial and dining opportunities. Mr. Penton
voiced his excitement and noted that they have waited over 20 years for this type of
development.

Mr. Bridgeman liked the proposed development but noted that he would like this
development to stand out or have features that differ from Desert Ridge or Tempe
Market Place. Mr. Bridgeman wanted the design features to reflect the Laveen
character. Mr. Bridgeman asked if condos and townhomes would be allowed. Mr.
Axtell confirmed. Mr. Bridgeman stated that he would like a portion of the commercial
space to be reserved for local businesses within the Laveen community.

Applicant Response:

Mr. Axtell stated that they have a very high-quality architectural design and noted that
even though it might look like Desert Ridge or Tempe Market Place, it will have
features that would reflect the Laveen character. Mr. Axtell added that here will be
numerous common areas and extensive shading.

Mr. Wood addressed the site plan comment by stating that the PUD does not have a
long list of permitted uses and that a site plan would only be created once all
commercial businesses are confirmed. Mr. Wood noted that a village core typically
allowed for higher density and an increase in height. Mr. Wood added that there were
stepback provisions for the height.

Committee Discussion:

Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted that he was just expressing his concerns because he
wanted to ensure that the applicant knew their expectations. Mr. Nasser-Taylor also
did not want the applicant to promise all sorts of improvements and then sell the land
after the PUD is approved. Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that he just wanted the applicant
to be respectful of the Laven character and heritage.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 346
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7

Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Request From S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) and S-1
Request To PUD
Proposal Planned Unit Development to allow a mixed use project
with commercial retail, multifamily residential, single-
family attached, and assisted living
Location Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation, with additional
stipulations and a modification
VPC Vote 11-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 3 (GPA-LV-1-25-7) and Item No. 4 (Z-29-25-7) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, presented an overview of GPA-LV-1-25-7 and Z-29-25-7.
Mrs. Sanchez Luna discussed the location of the site, the requested zoning
designation, and the surrounding land uses. Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview
of the proposed development including proposed uses for each development unit. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the staff findings,
correspondence, providing the staff recommendation and proposed stipulations.

Applicant Presentation:

Nick Wood, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, introduced himself and
added that he had worked rezoning cases within the Laveen Village over 23 years
ago. Mr. Wood provided some historic information regarding the Village Core and
noted that the applicant, Vestar and BRIO, would be the perfect fit for the area. David
Larcher, representing Vestar, voiced his excitement for the proposal and noted that
Vestar had done numerous successful shopping centers such as Tempe Marketplace
and Desert Ridge Marketplace. Mr. Larcher added that Vestar took pride in enhanced
development. Mr. Larcher provided background information such as acreage,
proposed development, and design layout. Mr. Larcher noted the enhanced green
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 347
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7
September 8, 2025

space that would be used to host promotional events and all pedestrian
enhancements such as trails and shading. Mr. Larcher summarized the proposed
residential uses and added noted all the street improvements. Mr. Wood displayed
Stipulation No. 6 from the rezoning case and noted the need to modify the language.
Mr. Wood stated that SRP protected their assets carefully, and that they did not want
to create any delays in construction. Mr. Wood displayed the proposed language and
requested that the Committee modify the stipulation.

Questions From the Committee:

Kristi McCann asked for more information regarding street improvements. Ms.
McCann noted the road medians and asked who would be installing the landscaping
within the street medians and who would maintain the landscaping once it has been
constructed.

Chair Stephanie Hurd requested all committee members to ask their questions first
and then the applicant would answer.

Andre Serrette and Juanita Darby stated that they did not have any questions.

Carlos Ortega noted that on page 36 of the PUD narrative there was a picture of a
four-story multifamily building. Mr. Ortega asked if their proposal consisted of four-
story multifamily buildings. Mr. Larcher stated that multifamily residential would be
permitted up to 4 stories within a certain setback. Mr. Ortega stated that the Village
preferred two to three-story buildings. Chair Hurd, Co-Vice Chair Jensen, Co-Vice
Chair Barraza, and Linda Abegg stated that the proposal was located within the
Village Core which would support additional height. Mr. Ortega added that on Exhibit
2 in the PUD Narrative, the proposed General Plan Land Use Map showed a larger
area than that displayed in the existing General Plan Land Use Map exhibit. Chair
Hurd requested staff to display the existing and proposed General Plan Land Use
Map exhibit. Mr. Ortega pointed to the site and the adjacent property and noted that
they were the same designation and asked if the boundary was being modified. Tom
Burchett, representing BRIO Investments, stated that the boundary would not be
modified. Mr. Wood added that the crosshatch would support residential and
commercial development. Mr. Ortega asked what type of residential would be
proposed within the development. Chair Hurd noted that the applicant was proposing
multifamily development in the middle section of the site.

Mixen Rubio-Raffin asked for more information on what is planned to replace the
multi-use trail on the west side of the site. Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked what else could be
done to integrate the historic farmhouse into the development. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
suggested possibly putting a fence around the house and keeping it as a monument.

Jennifer Rouse stated that she did not have any comments.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 348
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7
September 8, 2025

Michael Doromal asked for more information regarding access and road
improvements. Mr. Doromal noted that there seemed to be a gap in the proposed
improvements.

Linda Abegg stated that Laveen has been asking for a shopping and entertainment
center such as a movie theater. Ms. Abegg appreciated all the effort that was put into
the PUD Narrative and appreciated the time spent addressing community and
committee concerns. Ms. Abegg thanked staff and added that not everyone got what
they wanted but that this PUD would benefit Laveen.

Vice Chair Francisco Barraza voiced his agreement with Committee Member
Abegg’s comments.

Co-Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen thanked the applicant for everything they had told the
committee and added that she was out of town and had a few questions. Co-Vice
Chair Jensen asked for clarification on access conditions between the commercial and
residential parcels. Co-Vice Chair Jensen noted that on page 27, there was some
inconsistencies between gated and ungated and private and public accessways and
asked for clarification. Co-Vice Chair Jensen asked if there will be a connection
provided for because one of the Village goals has been to connect neighborhoods.
Co-Vice Chair asked for more information regarding EV parking and more information
on proposed amenities and open space for multifamily and single-family residential
development. Co-Vice Chair Jensen asked for more information regarding mobile
vending and the promotional events. Co-Vice Chair Jensen requested smoke shops
and vape shops be added to the prohibited list and asked for more information
regarding the zero-foot perimeter setback on the south portion of the site.

Chair Hurd noted that she appreciated the way they have integrated portions of the
Hudson Farmhouse into the development and that she really liked the palm trees and
cooling stations within the pedestrian paths.

Mr. Larcher stated that the multi-use trail on the Onley alignment had to be removed
because it would lead to ADOT retention adjacent to the Loop 202 Freeway. Mr.
Larcher confirmed that there would be an extensive pedestrian circulation plan with
connections. Mr. Larcher noted that the shared use path will be moved to the east side
of the site along 59th Avenue. Mr. Larcher added that the median landscaping will be
provided by their contractors but that the median will belong to the City. Mr. Larcher
stated that they will be improving the half street adjacent to their property. Mr. Larcher
added that some development will be gated but would have access to pedestrian
connections. Mr. Larcher added that they will not be building brick walls around the
residential portion. Tom Burchett, with BRIO Development, added that they will be
providing EV parking in their multifamily development. Mr. Larcher added that the
open space within the commercial portion would allow for mobile food or coffee trucks
once a month. Mr. Larcher noted that this way they will constantly be attracting more
individuals even on days when there isn’t a farmers market.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 349
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7
September 8, 2025

Mr. Larcher noted that he was confident that they could add smoke and vape shops to
the prohibited list. Mr. Larcher concluded his response by adding that the zero setback
would add flexibility but that the entire property would not be at zero-foot setback.

Mr. Wood stated that they will be providing numerous amenities within the residential
portion and utilize portions of the Hudson Farmhouse within the commercial area. Mr.
Burchett emphasized that he did not plan on selling a multifamily portion of the
development and that his company was known for high quality product. Mr. Burchett
displayed numerous amenities in existing multifamily development including waterfalls,
splash pads, and ramadas with grilling stations.

Public Comment:

Phil Hertel stated that he has worked with Nick Wood for over 25 years and that Mr.
Wood was a very honest and forthcoming man and that the community should trust
him. Mr. Hertel emphasized that this was one of the best projects in Laveen and that
he guaranteed that this was not a bait and switch.

Amanda McBride noted that she just found out about the project on social media and
was opposed to the inappropriate change. Ms. McBride noted that out of 90 acres only
a third of it would be for commercial use and that the proposed open space was very
small and didn’t allow enough room for kids to play. Ms. McBride added that palm
trees were a horrible choice for vegetation due to the lack of shade and water
consumption. Ms. McBride expressed that more commercial space needed to be
conserved so residents would stop going to Ahwatukee for amenities. Ms. McBride
noted that people don’t want to move to Laveen because of the lack of commercial
development. Ms. McBride concluded her statement by adding that residents must
drive several minutes to the nearest grocery store and medical office and that she
agreed to add vape and smoke shops to the prohibited list.

Chair Hurd asked Ms. McBride how she found out about the development. Ms.
McBride noted that she had seen a post on Facebook by Dan Penton.

Marty Bridgman stated that he was supportive of the development but asked how the
material of the Hudson Farmhouse would be used and what type of lighting would be
used within the development. Mr. Larcher stated that they will be using some of the
concrete and stone into the walkways and that the lighting will be positioned to light
downward.

Jon Kimoto noted that he was in favor of the item and that he trusted the land use
attorney. Mr. Kimoto stated that this proposed development will break the mold of
mediocre commercial development that the village has seen throughout the years. Mr.
Kimoto stated that he was impressed with the design quality and the amount of
commercial.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 350
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7
September 8, 2025

Applicant Response:

Mr. Larcher stated that the palm trees will only be in the entryway of the commercial
development, similar to the commercial development in Tempe Market Place and
Desert Ridge. Mr. Larcher added that palm trees will only consist of 10 percent of all
landscaping. Mr. Larcher noted that there would be numerous cooling stations
throughout the pedestrian paths and that they requested the modification to Stipulation
No. 6 in order to prevent any delays in construction.

Committee Discussion:

Chair Hurd asked if anyone else had any questions. Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked for
clarification regarding bike racks and if they were going to be required. Mr. Larcher
confirmed. Chair Hurd stated that the bike racks should be designed to have design
features instead of basic inverted Us.

Ms. Abegg asked for confirmation that the stipulation will be added and modified in
the rezoning case and not the General Plan Amendment case. Chair Hurd confirmed.

Vice Chair Jensen stated that she appreciated the architectural design of the single-
family and multifamily development. Co-Vice Chair Jensen appreciated the Laveen
heavy duty agrarian culture and noted that the proposed development did a good job
of mixing modern while keeping the style agrarian.

Motion:
Linda Abegg motioned to recommend approval of Z-29-25-7, per the staff
recommendation with a modification to Stipulation No. 6 regarding the approval of the
SRP facilities along the right-of-way, and the following additional stipulations:
• Smoke shops and vape shops will be added to the prohibited list on Page 16.
• The property owner, or designee, shall provide biannual land development
updates and status for development within the PUD, starting six months after City
Council approval to the Laveen Village Planning Committee until all development
areas have preliminary site plan approval.
• Page 34, E. Design Guidelines, B. Architecture: Add a row that states the
following “Rooflines - Building design for both the project’s residential and
commercial components shall separately incorporate a minimum of two (2)
unique rooflines (Gable, Flat, Hip, Shed, etc,) to create visual diversity.”
Carlos Ortega second the motion.

Vote:
11-0, motion to recommend approval of Z-29-25-7, per the staff recommendation, with
a modification and additional stipulation passed with Committee Members Abegg,
Darby, Doromal, McCann, Ortega, Rouse, Rubio-Raffin, Serrette, Barraza, Jensen,
and Hurd in favor.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 351
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7
September 8, 2025

Recommended Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Laveen Towne 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 19, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations.

a. Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”

B. PAGE 16, C. LIST OF USES, C3: PROHIBITED USES, DEVELOPMENT
AREA 1 AND DEVELOPMENT AREA 2: ADD “SMOKE SHOPS” AND
“VAPE SHOPS.”

b. Page 18, D. Development Standards, a. Development Area 1, 6. Minimum
c. Building Setbacks, Interior Property Lines: Modify both the commercial
and multifamily residential development standards as follows: “5’ adjacent
to Development Area 2.”

c. Page 32, D. Development Standards, D6: Shade, Third Paragraph: Modify
d. to state the following “Shading Exemption: Where utility conflicts,
easements, fire lane access, turning lanes, or other required infrastructure
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.”

E. PAGE 34, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, B. ARCHITECTURE: ADD A ROW
THAT STATES THE FOLLOWING “ROOFLINES - BUILDING DESIGN
FOR BOTH THE PROJECT’S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
COMPONENTS SHALL SEPARATELY INCORPORATE A MINIMUM
OF TWO (2) UNIQUE ROOFLINES (GABLE, FLAT, HIP, SHED, ETC,)
TO CREATE VISUAL DIVERSITY.”

2. THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR DESIGNEE, SHALL PROVIDE BIANNUAL
LAND DEVELOPMENT UPDATES AND STATUS FOR DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE PUD, STARTING SIX MONTHS AFTER CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL TO THE LAVEEN VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE UNTIL ALL
DEVELOPMENT AREAS HAVE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

2. The developer shall construct two bus pads conforming with Standard Detail
3. P1260 on southbound 59th Avenue, 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile south of Dobbins
Road. The bus pads shall be located on the far side of intersections according to
standard detail P1258.

3. At the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road, the developer shall
4. construct a bus bay on southbound 59th Avenue. The bay shall be constructed

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 352
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-29-25-7
September 8, 2025

according to Standard Detail P1256 with an attached pad.

4. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated to accommodate any portion of the
5. required minimum width for the Shared Use Path along 59th Avenue that extends
beyond the right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
6. undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall to coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

6. SUBJECT TO SRP APPROVAL, Eexisting SRP facilities along Dobbins Road
7. are to be relocated outside of City right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the
Street Transportation Department. Relocations that require additional dedications
or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review
approval.

7. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
8. broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

8. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
9. 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
10. 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. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
11. waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:
Staff recommends updating Stipulation No. 1.b to reflect the Zoning Ordinance
language and change “smoke shop and vape shop” to “Tobacco Oriented Retailers.”
Staff has no concerns with the additions of Stipulation Nos. 1.e and 2.
The Street Transportation Department does not recommend modifying Stipulation No.
6 because the location of the SRP irrigation within the right-of-way can impact the
City’s ability to install signals, streetlights and landscaping, or obtain code-required
public utility easement dedications for private utilities.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 353
ATTACHMENT D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: October 6, 2025

From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner

Subject: ITEM NO. 7 (Z-29-25-7, LAVEEN TOWNE CENTER PUD) –
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 59TH AVENUE AND DOBBINS ROAD

Rezoning Case No. Z-29-25-7 is a request to rezone 95.11 acres located at the
southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road from 93.12 acres of S-1 (Approved
C-2/CP-GCP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, General Commerce Park Option) and 1.99 acres of S-1
(Ranch or Farm Residence) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow for a Planned
Unit Development to allow a mixed use project with commercial retail, multifamily
residential, single-family attached, and assisted living.

The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this request on September 8, 2025 and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification and three
additional stipulations, by a vote of 11-0.

Staff recommends updating Stipulation No. 1.b to reflect the Zoning Ordinance
terminology and change “smoke shop and vape shop” to “Tobacco Oriented Retailers”.
Staff has no concerns with the additions of Stipulation Nos. 1.e and 2.

The Street Transportation Department does not recommend modifying Stipulation No. 6
(new 13) because the location of the SRP irrigation within the right-of-way can impact
the City’s ability to install signals, streetlights and landscaping, or obtain code-required
public utility easement dedications for private utilities. All infrastructure that retains
exclusive rights must be located outside of the city’s right-of-way.

Stipulations from the Street Transportation Department were inadvertently left out of
the original staff report; however they were consistently communicated to the applicant
throughout the review process. These stipulations include the requirement of a Master
Street Plan, right-of-way dedications on Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue, numerous
improvements per the accepted Traffic Impact Analysis and development agreement,
and a vehicular access easement. These additional requirements are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 5 through 10.

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

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Laveen Towne 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

Z-29-25-7
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

Development Narrative shall be consistent with Development Narrative date
stamped August 19, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations.

a. Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”

B. PAGE 16, C. LIST OF USES, C3: PROHIBITED USES, DEVELOPMENT
AREA 1 AND DEVELOPMENT AREA 2: ADD “SMOKE SHOPS” AND
“VAPE SHOPS.” “TOBACCO ORIENTED RETAILERS”.

b. Page 18, D. Development Standards, a. Development Area 1, 6. Minimum
c. Building Setbacks, Interior Property Lines: Modify both the commercial
and multifamily residential development standards as follows: “5’ adjacent
to Development Area 2.”

c. Page 32, D. Development Standards, D6: Shade, Third Paragraph: Modify
d. to state the following “Shading Exemption: Where utility conflicts,
easements, fire lane access, turning lanes, or other required infrastructure
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.”

E. PAGE 34, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, B. ARCHITECTURE: ADD A ROW
THAT STATES THE FOLLOWING “ROOFLINES - BUILDING DESIGN
FOR BOTH THE PROJECT’S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
COMPONENTS SHALL SEPARATELY INCORPORATE A MINIMUM OF
TWO (2) UNIQUE ROOFLINES (GABLE, FLAT, HIP, SHED, ETC,) TO
CREATE VISUAL DIVERSITY.”

2. THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR DESIGNEE, SHALL PROVIDE BIANNUAL
LAND DEVELOPMENT UPDATES AND STATUS FOR DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE PUD, STARTING SIX MONTHS AFTER CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL TO THE LAVEEN VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE UNTIL ALL
DEVELOPMENT AREAS HAVE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

2. The developer shall construct two bus pads conforming with Standard Detail
3. P1260 on southbound 59th Avenue, 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile south of Dobbins
Road. The bus pads shall be located on the far side of intersections according to
standard detail P1258.

3. At the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road, the developer shall
4. construct a bus bay on southbound 59th Avenue. The bay shall be constructed
according to Standard Detail P1256 with an attached pad.

5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A MASTER STREET PLAN (MSP), AS
REQUIRED BY THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD), SECTION 636
OF THE PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, AS APPROVED BY THE

Z-29-25-7
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT, PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

6. A MINIMUM OF 55 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR
THE SOUTH HALF OF DOBBINS ROAD FLARING TO 70 FEET TO
ACCOMMODATE A FLARED INTERSECTION, AND THE FULL LIMITS OF
DOBBINS ROAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACCEPTED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DATED JULY 3, 2025.

7. A MINIMUM OF 55 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR
THE WEST HALF OF 59TH AVENUE FLARING TO 70 FEET TO
ACCOMMODATE A FLARED INTERSECTION, AND THE ROADWAY SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACCEPTED TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY DATED JULY 3, 2025.

8. ALL MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND/OR
FUNDED AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ACCEPTED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DATED JULY 3, 2025.

9. CONSTRUCTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (S-49318) DATED
JUNE 14, 2024.

10 A MINIMUM 28-FOOT-WIDE VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE
DEDICATED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AREA 2, AS DEPICTED ON THE
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IN THE PUD DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE
DATED AUGUST 19, 2025, AND IDENTIFIED ON THE FINAL PLAT TO
ESTABLISH ACCESS TO THE WESTERN ADJACENT PARCEL THROUGH
THE SITE TO 59TH AVENUE.

4. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated to accommodate any portion of the
11. required minimum width for the Shared Use Path along 59th Avenue that extends
beyond the right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
12. undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall to coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

6. SUBJECT TO SRP APPROVAL, EeExisting SRP facilities along Dobbins Road
13. are to be relocated outside of City right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the
Street Transportation Department. Relocations that require additional dedications
or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review
approval.

7. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
14. broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
Z-29-25-7
Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 6, 2025

upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

8. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
15. 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
16. 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. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
17. 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.




ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
OCTOBER 6, 2025

ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 7
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-29-25-7 (Laveen Towne Center PUD)
(Companion Case GPA-LV-1-25-7)
Location: Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road
From: S-1 and S-1 (Approved C-2 or CP/GCP)
To: PUD
Acreage: 95.11
Proposal: PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow a mixed use project with
commercial retail, multifamily residential, single-family attached, and
assisted living.
Applicant: Vestar
Owner: Cold Springs, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 6/9/2025 Information only.
Laveen 9/8/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations and a
modification. Vote: 11-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated October 6, 2025
and a deleted stipulation.

Motion Discussion: Commissioner Gorraiz asked if staff had an issue with deleting Stipulation
No. 10, per the applicant’s request.

Ms. Racelle Escolar stated that the stipulation came directly from the Street Transportation
Department as they have concerns about access for maintenance and access if the land is sold
in the future. She stated the current easement along Elliot Road is narrow and may be difficult to
access in the future.

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-29-25-7, per the staff
memo dated October 6, 2025, with a deletion of Stipulation No. 10.

Maker: Matthews
Second: Odgard-Begay
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Hu
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. The proposal is compatible with the existing land use pattern and is consistent with the
proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation and the Laveen Village Core.

2. The proposal contains enhanced standards that will result in a more walkable, shaded,
and pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposal will provide increased shade which
will help to reduce the urban heat island effect.

3. The proposal will provide additional employment options, commercial services, and
housing opportunities within the Loop 202 Freeway corridor and the Laveen village.

Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Laveen Towne 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 19,
2025, as modified by the following stipulations.

a. Front Cover, add “City Council adopted: [Insert Adoption date]”

B. PAGE 16, C. LIST OF USES, C3: PROHIBITED USES, DEVELOPMENT
AREA 1 AND DEVELOPMENT AREA 2: ADD “SMOKE SHOPS” AND
“VAPE SHOPS.” “TOBACCO ORIENTED RETAILERS”.

b. Page 18, D. Development Standards, a. Development Area 1, 6. Minimum
c. Building Setbacks, Interior Property Lines: Modify both the commercial and
multifamily residential development standards as follows: “5’ adjacent to
Development Area 2.”

c. Page 32, D. Development Standards, D6: Shade, Third Paragraph: Modify to
d. state the following “Shading Exemption: Where utility conflicts, easements, fire
lane access, turning lanes, or other required infrastructure exist, the developer
shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.”

E. PAGE 34, E. DESIGN GUIDELINES, B. ARCHITECTURE: ADD A ROW THAT
STATES THE FOLLOWING “ROOFLINES - BUILDING DESIGN FOR BOTH
THE PROJECT’S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS SHALL
SEPARATELY INCORPORATE A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) UNIQUE ROOFLINES
(GABLE, FLAT, HIP, SHED, ETC,) TO CREATE VISUAL DIVERSITY.”

2. THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR DESIGNEE, SHALL PROVIDE BIANNUAL LAND
DEVELOPMENT UPDATES AND STATUS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PUD,
STARTING SIX MONTHS AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO THE LAVEEN
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE UNTIL ALL DEVELOPMENT AREAS HAVE
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

2. The developer shall construct two bus pads conforming with Standard Detail P1260 on
3. southbound 59th Avenue, 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile south of Dobbins Road. The bus pads
shall be located on the far side of intersections according to standard detail P1258.

3. At the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road, the developer shall
4. construct a bus bay on southbound 59th Avenue. The bay shall be constructed
according to Standard Detail P1256 with an attached pad.


5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A MASTER STREET PLAN (MSP), AS
REQUIRED BY THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD), SECTION 636
OF THE PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT, PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

6. A MINIMUM OF 55 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR
THE SOUTH HALF OF DOBBINS ROAD FLARING TO 70 FEET TO
ACCOMMODATE A FLARED INTERSECTION, AND THE FULL LIMITS OF
DOBBINS ROAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACCEPTED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DATED JULY 3, 2025.

7. A MINIMUM OF 55 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR
THE WEST HALF OF 59TH AVENUE FLARING TO 70 FEET TO
ACCOMMODATE A FLARED INTERSECTION, AND THE ROADWAY SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACCEPTED TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY DATED JULY 3, 2025.

8. ALL MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND/OR
FUNDED AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ACCEPTED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DATED JULY 3, 2025.

9. CONSTRUCTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (S-49318) DATED
JUNE 14, 2024.

10. A MINIMUM 28-FOOT-WIDE VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE
DEDICATED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AREA 2, AS DEPICTED ON THE
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IN THE PUD DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE
DATED AUGUST 19, 2025, AND IDENTIFIED ON THE FINAL PLAT TO
ESTABLISH ACCESS TO THE WESTERN ADJACENT PARCEL THROUGH
THE SITE TO 59TH AVENUE.

4. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated to accommodate any portion of the
11. required minimum width for the Shared Use Path along 59th Avenue that
10. extends beyond the right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
12. undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall to coordinate
11. with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

6. SUBJECT TO SRP APPROVAL, EeExisting SRP facilities along Dobbins Road
13. are to be relocated outside of City right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by
12. the Street Transportation Department. Relocations that require additional
dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil
plan review approval.



7. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
14. broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
13. upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.

8. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
15. paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
14. 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
16. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
15. foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

10. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
17. waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
16. 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
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT F
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

To: Barbara Vaughn; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: RE: Heritage District



From: Barbara Vaughn
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 11:40 AM
To: PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Heritage District
I am writing to express my strong disagreement with the complete demolition of the historic farmstead leaving only a single chimney (not the fireplace) and one silo.௘ Please share this with the upcoming meeting regarding this issue. Thank you.௘
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart




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

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd




I am writing to express my strong disagreement with the complete
demolition of the historic farmstead leaving only a single chimney (not
the fireplace) and one silo.
Please share this with the upcoming meeting regarding this issue.
Thank you.
Barbara Vaughn,
Laveen resident


--
Barbara Vaughn




Nayeli Sanchez Luna

From: Jme
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:24 AM
To: PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Laveen Towne center




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


I would like to voice by opposition for the elimination of the multi use trail that aligns with Olney in the
Laveen Towne Center PUD.

It is important to KEEP that trail as a link to other areas/future developments in Laveen! Please keep
the Laveen Heritage with the buildings and continue to follow the Phx general plan for Laveen.

Thank you,

Jamie Adams
Laveen Resident
3941 W Estes Way, 85339







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
OCTOBER 15, 2025) Public Hearing and Modification of Stipulation Request -
Rezoning Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - Northwest Corner of 24th Street
and Missouri Avenue - District 6

Request to hold a public hearing on the Planning Hearing Officer rezoning application
for the following item and consider adoption of the Planning Commission
recommendation on September 4, 2025.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Existing Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16

Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings, LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings, LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh P.L.C.
Appellant: Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie, PLLC

Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan and
rendering.
2. Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3. Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
4. Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.

VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) opted not to hear
this item.
PHO Action: On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the item under
advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the item out from
under advisement and recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and
an additional stipulation.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on September 4, 2025, and
recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional
stipulation, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, with a modification, by a



vote of 5-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on September 10, 2025.

Location
Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 5500 N. 24th Street

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





PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Alan Stephenson Date: November 4, 2025
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua BednarekPlanning and Development Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 50 ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2025, PUBLIC HEARING
AND MODIFICATION OF STIPULATION REQUEST - REZONING
APPLICATION PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - NORTHWEST CORNER OF 24TH
STREET AND MISSOURI AVENUE

This memo serves to request the continuance of the agenda item scheduled for the
November 5, 2025, Formal Meeting, concerning the request to modify stipulations of
entitlement for a 1.16-acre site located at the northwest corner of 24th Street and
Missouri Avenue.

The applicant and appellant have begun developing modifications and additions to
the stipulations for the request. Staff recommends continuing this item to the
December 3, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to allow additional time for the
applicant and appellant to finalize the stipulations.




Approved: dU·?tfl
Alan Stephens:
Deputy City Manager




ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Recommended Stipulations
PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6

Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue

STIPULATIONS:

1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.

3. Construction to commence within 24 months.

4. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
2. 24 feet.
3.

3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
4. SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.




ATTACHMENT B




*REVISED
Staff Report: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
*September 12, 2025


APPLICATION #: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6

LOCATION: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue

EXISTING ZONING: C-O

ACREAGE: 1.16

REQUEST: 1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2) Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement
of construction.
4) Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.

APPLICANT: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings, LLC

OWNER: Slavicek Holdings, LLC

REPRESENTATIVE: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation, per the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendation.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. On
July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and
recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation.




Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) opted not to hear this request.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS

The subject site consists of 1.16 gross acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue and is zoned C-O (Commercial Office-Restricted
Commercial). The applicant requested the following modification requests (*Enclosure
B):

• Modification to Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan
and rendering.

• Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.

• Deletion of Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.

• Modification to Stipulation 4 regarding building height.

* The conceptual site plan depicted the proposed second floor addition (957 square
feet), existing bay unit at mezzanine, and 33 parking spaces (*Enclosure G). The
conceptual elevations depicted a 24-foot-tall building with proposed slate roof tile, stone
veneer framing to match the existing stone, a metal roof, and decorative wood pop-outs
(*Enclosure H).

The appellant argues the PHO states in his findings for Request 4 “I support the
rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case, during which the
original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on
the inside and they would not have two-story use of the structure." However, despite the
PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site
plan and renderings that provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are
appealing as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio (*Enclosure A).

PREVIOUS HISTORY

On March 10, 1980, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-323-79-6,
a request to rezone approximately 1.16 acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue from RE-35 (Single-Family Residence) to C-O (Commercial
Office-Restricted Commercial) (*Enclosure E). The proposed development was
intended for professional offices.

The Planning Commission recommended denial of the case by a vote of 6-1 on, per
staff recommendation, on November 28, 1979 (*Enclosure K). The staff
recommendation indicated the following pros and cons of the case (*Enclosure L):




Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission

Pros:
• The parcel is on a major street.
• C-O zoning requires a site plan review.

Cons:
• The property was reasonably developed under the RE-35 zoning.
• Approval would lead to similar requests for lots on the west side of 24th Street
and worsen traffic congestion on this street.
• Does not meet the recommended density designation of the 0-2 residential units
per the 1985 Urban Forms Plan.

*
The City Council approved the rezoning to C-O with four stipulations to ensure the
property remain compatible with the surrounding land uses (*Enclosure E).

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS

Public Correspondence
Ninety-seven letters of support were received, indicating the proposed
improvements will not cause any harm to the neighborhood, will not change its
character, and will provide architecture that will make the building look more iconic
(*Enclosure M).

Fifty-two letters of opposition were received, indicating concerns with the building
height, the applicant’s failure to obtain proper permits, the promotion of commercial
development in a residential neighborhood, the building not meeting building code
requirements, and privacy issues (*Enclosure N). A petition of opposition was
submitted, containing over 140 signatures, including some members who rescinded
their support for the case due to misinformation (*Enclosure O).

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION

Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units / acre

CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use

On-site: C-O Professional Office

North: RE-35 Vacant Residential Lot

East:
(Across 24th Street): PAD-6 Single-Family Residential




Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission

South
(Across Missouri Avenue): RE-35 Single-Family Residential


West: RE-35 Single-Family Residential


PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS

1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan and
rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The modification
is to replace the existing language with a standard language stipulation regarding
general conformance to the site plan and elevations. The original stipulated site
plan depicts an office building situated at the southeast corner of the lot. The
proposed site plan depicts an 8,764 square foot office with a height of 26 feet-2
inches measured to the top of ridge. Note that maximum building height is
addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal is not changing the building footprint so
there is no real change to the site plan. The building height is also not being
modified.

The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The office
that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.

The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that include
architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several building additions
including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers. The west elevation shows
a new large dormer with four new windows and a variety of building materials
including stone veneer, decorative wood pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that
match the existing building. The windows appear to align with the proposed
interior addition of office space to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation
features two new turrets with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level.
The east elevation shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with
windows, one at mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north
elevation features several proposed dormers and roof vents.

2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the proposed
site plan will allow the development to comply with current ordinance standards
for this use.

3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of construction
is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met and the zoning was
subsequently vested with adoption of an Official Supplementary Zoning Map.




Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission

4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is recommended to
be denied. The applicant requested a modification to remove the language
requiring the building to be built as one-story. The existing stipulation was
intended to ensure that a one-story building was built on the site. The original
stipulation was approved by City Council on March 10, 1980 and the minutes
reflect that the original plan for the development was revised from a two-story to
a one-story as a result of public concern related to the height of the building. In
addition, it was noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and they
would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was concerned
about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story with a height
limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the rationale in the original
decision.

At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain one-
story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story to the
building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will add an
additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was constructed at
some point since the original rezoning case approval. The applicant will be
required to submit construction documents to the Planning and Development
Department for approval and will therefore be required to comply with the
stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and International Building Code requirements,
which will be addressed during the plan review process.

5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the
Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application
requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to
record this form and deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS

1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.

3. Construction to commence within 24 months.

2. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
4. 24 feet.




Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission

3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.


Enclosures:
A- Appeal Documents (3 pages)
B- Applicant’s Narrative for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (17 pages)
C- Aerial Map
D- Zoning Map
E- Approval Letter for Z-323-79-6 (1 page)
F- PHO Summary for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 from May 21, 2025 (7 pages)
G- Conceptual Site Plan, date stamped April 2, 2025
H- Conceptual Elevations, date stamped April 2, 2025 (3 pages)
I- Stipulated Site Plan for Z-323-79-6
J- Stipulated Elevations for Z-323-79-6
K- Planning Commission Summary for Z-323-79-6 (3 pages)
L- Staff Recommendation from original staff report for Z-323-79-6 (2 pages)
M- Letters of support for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (102 pages)
N- Letters of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (62 pages)
O- Petition of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (46 pages)




ENCLOSURE A




PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
*REVISED – 7/8/2025
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
PHO HEARING DATE: May 21, 2025 RECEIVED: July 7, 2025
(taken out from under
advisement on
July 7, 2025)
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: PLANNING *September 4, 2025
COMMISSION TENTATIVE DATE
*October 15, 2025
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS/EMAIL: PHONE:
Kurt Waldier
Gilbert Blilie PLLC
701 North 44th Street
480-429-3061
Phoenix, AZ 85008
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com

RECEIPT NUMBER: N/A
REASON FOR REQUEST:

The PHO states in Findings #4 that “I support the rational in the original decision” in
regards to the original zoning case during which the original applicant at the City
Council hearing stated there would be “no mezzanine on the inside and they would
not have two-story use of the structure.” However, despite the PHO’s concurrence,
the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and
renderings that provides for a potential use of a ‘mezzanine level’ which we are
appealing, as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.

TAKEN BY: Greg Harmon

Joshua Bednarek PC Planner Asst – Camryn Thompson
Tricia Gomes PHO Secretary – Ruth Somoza
Racelle Escolar PC Secretary – Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Adam Stranieri GIS Team
Byron Easton Raquel Moreno – Posting
PHO Planner Asst – Teresa Garcia




S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2025\PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - Kurt Waldier - Opposition (taken
out of advisement)\REVISED APPEAL\Internal Cover_REVISED.doc
*REVISED 7/8/2025
CITY OF PHOENIX
JUL O 7 2025
Planning & Development
Department
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

May 21, 2025- PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Taken out from under
The PLANNING HEARING OFFICER agenda for Advisement on July 7, 2025 is attached.

The City Council May Ratify the Recommendation of the Planning Hearing Officer
on August 27, 2025, Without Further Hearing Unless:

• A REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION is filed by
5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2025. (There is a $630.00 fee for hearings requested by the
applicant.)

Any member of the public may, within seven (7) days after the Planning Hearing
Officer's action, request a hearing by the Planning Commission on any application.
If you wish to request a hearing, fill out and sign the form below and return it to the
Planning and Development Department by 5:00 p.m. July 14, 2025.


APPEAL FORM
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:


PH O-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION OF APPLICATION PROPERTY

Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie PLLC
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
� OPPOSITION □ APPLICANT
701 N 44th St kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
STREET ADDRESS: EMAIL:

Phoenix, AZ 85008 480-429-3061
CITY, STATE AN D ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO

BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE AS FOLLOWS:
Ma 21, 2025- PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Tak�n out from undeJ
APPEALED FROM advisement July 7, 2025 PHO HEARING TO * 9/4/2025 PC HEARING
DATE DATE




SIGNATURE: .... V...,---=-:t=
;:._j{A)
_...,J
..........�----' =----- DATE: 7/7/2025


REASON FOR APPEAL: The PHO states in Findings #4 that "I support the rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case

during which the original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on the inside and they would not have two-story use of

the structure." However. despite the PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and renderings that

provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are appealing. as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.

APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN PERSON AT THE 2ND FLOOR ZONING COUNTER, 200 W. WASHINGTON STREET, 602-262-7131, Option 6

PLANNER TAKING APPEAL: Gi�
Copies to: Case File PHO Planner - Teresa Garcia PHO Secretary- Ruth Somoza




ENCLOSURE B




April 2, 2025


VIA HAND DELIVERY
Byron Easton
Planning Hearing Officer
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 2 nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re: Modification of Stipulations - Case No. Z-323-79 NWC 24th Street and Missouri Avenue, Phoenix
Dear Mr. Easton:
This firm represents Brett Slavicek (the Owner ) regarding the proposal to renovate their law office building located
at 5500 N. 24th Street in Phoenix, which is also known as Maricopa County APN 164-46-017 This
Property is a transitional piece between single-family residential and the Camelback Road corridor, which has
intensive development and height. Please see attached Exhibit A for an aerial view of the Property. As explained
herein, the proposed development requires modification of stipulations, which were approved 46 years ago per
rezoning case Z-323-79, to accommodate the minor renovation to the existing office building.
BACKGROUND
The current office is a well-known charming building along 24th Street that resembles a stone home with
architecturally distinct facades, copper turret, ample landscaping, flowers, and no signage. The C-O zoning for the
site was approved in 1980, and the structure was built in 1982. The low impact of the current use on the site, the
considerate design of the building, and care of the Property has created an asset to the neighborhood.
The original rezoning approval and exhibits are attached at Exhibit B.
PROPOSAL
Due to the age of the existing building and need to modernize, the Owner would like to improve the interior of the
building and offer additional office space (approximately 1,000 square feet beyond what exists in the current
mezzanine). These offices will stay within the current building footprint and existing building height of 24 feet. In
addition to interior improvements, the building exterior will keep its charm, while updating aged elements such as the
roof, which will convert to slate and add more copper, and additional landscaping.
The proposed site plan, elevation, and rendering are attached at Exhibit C.
STIPULATION MODIFICATION
To allow the proposed renovation of the Property, the Owner requests the following modification of stipulations
approved for Z-323-79:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL to be in GENERAL conformance with the site plan and rendering. ELEVATIONS
DATED_________, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.




April 2, 2025
Page 2


Rationale: This stipulation has been modified to reflect the updated site plan and elevations for the
minor office renovation.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
Rationale: The parking should be consistent with the current and more modern city of Phoenix
parking ratios, which are met with the proposal.
3. Construction commences within 24 months.
Rationale: This stipulation was accomplished with the original building and therefore is obsolete for
this request.
4. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL That it be one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed 24
feet.
Rationale: The intent of the original stipulation is still met with the height limitation of 24 feet, and
this modification would clarify and accommodate the proposed building renovation.
CONCLUSION
This minor office renovation will maintain the appeal and architectural integrity of the current building, while providing
more modern office building. The thoughtful proposal of the additional space positioned within the existing building
footprint and height continues the tradition of being a good neighbor.

Very truly yours,

WITHEY MORRIS BAUGH P.L.C.




By
Jason B. Morris

Attachments




ENCLOSURE C




PAD-6*
N 23RD PL
RE-35 E MARSHALL AVE




N 24TH ST
C-O*




E MISSOURI AVE




ALLEY
PAD-8*
N 24TH ST




mapservices@phoenix.gov



Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6




Planning & Development Department 0 40 80 160 Feet
´
ENCLOSURE D




E MARSHALL AVE
PAD-6*
N 23RD PL




C-O*
N 24TH ST




E MISSOURI AVE

RE-35




ALLEY N 24TH ST PAD-8*



N 25TH ST




PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue




Planning & Development Department 0 40 80 160 Feet
´
ENCLOSURE E




Mod

Del


Del

Mod




ENCLOSURE F




REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Byron Easton, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Teresa Garcia, Planner I, Assisting

May 21, 2025

ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO. 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Request: 1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2) Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding
commencement of construction.
4) Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building
height.
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, LLC

ACTIONS:

Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took
the case under advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took
the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed, approval
with a modification and an additional stipulation.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Camelback East
Village Planning Committee opted not to hear this request.

DISCUSSION:

Jason Morris, representative of Withey Morris Baugh PLC, stated he is familiar
with the subject site and thought this would be a straightforward PHO request,
however, based on the amount of correspondence from the neighborhood, he
now thinks differently. He gave an overview of the site and his request to delete
Stipulations 1-4. He indicated the area was a target for urbanization in 1979 and
the City Council recognized the need for a professional office at this intersection.
He stated the current owner has owned the building since 2013 and has been a
good neighbor and has maintained the look of the building and landscaping.




Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 2

He noted the building and parking lot are often underutilized and surrounding
neighbors have used the parking lot when they have social gatherings. He stated
there are parking canopies along the north and west boundaries of the parking lot
and the building is pushed more towards the intersection of 24th Street and
Missouri Avenue, thus creating separation from the surrounding residential uses.

He explained that the project will primarily be an interior remodel with just a few
exterior changes; they do not intend to increase the building height, change the
use, or add a second floor. He stated there is an existing mezzanine that meets
the definition of a mezzanine in the Zoning Ordinance and in addition, a City of
Phoenix Municipal Judge who heard the original Neighborhood Services violation
case. He explained that the applicant is proposing the addition of two and a half
meeting rooms to an existing space that contains a law library and a small
kitchen and the total square footage they are requesting includes an interior
mezzanine space addition of approximately 1,000 square feet.

Byron Easton, Planning Hearing Officer, asked Mr. Morris to clarify why the
existing 1,411 square foot mezzanine space is being incorporated into the new
total floor space.

Mr. Morris clarified there are three levels to the building: a small basement, the
main level and the existing mezzanine space, which has been in place for some
time. He stated their request is just to add an additional 1,035 square feet; there
will be no new mezzanine or new floor space added.

Mr. Easton asked if the total floor space is the sum of the new floor space and
the existing floor space. Mr. Morris confirmed this was correct.

Mr. Morris gave an overview of their request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding
general conformance to the site plan and rendering. The request is meant to
address the exterior changes proposed on the site. The project scope originally
focused on updating the roof to a slate roof and that warranted a larger remodel
of the building, including a new turret structure featuring a copper roof. He
reiterated the height of the building will remain under the approved 24-foot height
limit that was stipulated in the original rezoning case. He noted the mezzanine
level on the west side of the building will include windows that will be screened
by 4 levels of foliage and will face southwest towards Missouri Avenue. In
addition, the windows will be 5 feet above floor level to provide interior light and
views of the sky but will not provide views into the neighbor’s property adjacent to
the west.

He discussed his request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios by
noting the current parking standards are being met and the parking lot has rarely
been at maximum capacity. The parking lot is only full occasionally on the
weekends, when the owner has allowed neighbors to use it for personal
gatherings. He stated the renovations will be uniform with the neighborhood



Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 3

character and a second floor will not be added. He clarified that the mezzanine is
not a second story, and the property owner does not intend to exceed 24 feet in
height. Mr. Morris stated regardless of how much misinformation had been
circulated in the neighborhood, they have received 78 letters and 91 signatures
in support of the PHO request.

Paul Gilbert, representative of Beus Gilbert, stated he spoke on behalf of several
neighbors in opposition. He gave an overview of the site and the history of the
rezoning case. He indicated the original zoning stipulations were intended to
protect the neighborhood and make lasting commitments to the surrounding
neighbors. He stated the applicant has not been the good neighbor that he
claims to be.

He noted the site is “spot zoned” and is the only commercial zoned property
within a 2,000-foot radius. He noted the surrounding density is low density
residential, therefore the use is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of
Residential 1 to 2 du/acre. He stated the original case faced public opposition,
and Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application.
The City Council minutes indicated the building was revised from a two-story
building to a one-story building with no mezzanine and the windows were not to
exceed 8 feet in height. He stated the applicant intended to change the parking
ratio to 1 space for every 300 square feet instead of 1 space for every 250
square feet. He noted the owner proceeded with construction of the second
story without obtaining the proper permits, even though the building was deemed
unsafe. He stated the only permit obtained was a roof permit, but no permits
were pulled for the other renovations. He stated the owner’s claims about the
existing mezzanine were not consistent with the narrative nor Mr. Morris’
presentation. He states the project will support multistory office uses along 24th
Street and encourage other property owners to start construction without
acquiring the appropriate permits first. He stated the parking lot has been full on
multiple occasions, prompting people to park in the surrounding neighborhood,
including himself when he’s attended a seminar in the building.

Mr. Morris expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gilbert. He stated some
neighbors who switched their position on the case were given incorrect
information. He reiterated the applicant is only adding 1,035 square feet, the site
plan Mr. Gilbert presented was incorrect, and they intend to meet the parking
standards per the Planning and Development Department. He stated he
appreciates and respects Mr. Gilbert’s opinion, but the applicant never made a
commitment to preserving the current appearance of the building, he only
committed to keeping the building appearance consistent with the character of
the neighborhood. He reiterated that a mezzanine is not the same as a new floor
or story. The applicant is remaining compliant with the definition of a mezzanine
and are not increasing the building height. He said the PHO hearing is not a
litigation regarding the non-permitted construction, but a way for the owner to
demonstrate compliance with City requirements.



Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 4



Brett Slavicek, the current property owner, stated he wanted more space to
accommodate his son going to law school. He noted that he was not advised the
proper permits were not obtained nor of the window height restriction. He
reiterated the definition of a mezzanine may be considered a floor, but not a story
and intends on meeting the 24-foot building height. He stated he is undergoing
the PHO process to correct the violations.

Peter Drake, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he is familiar with this case and has lived in the neighborhood for many years. He
stated there is no justification to change the building since the neighborhood has
not been subject to any residential to commercial conversions since 1980.

Bill Shubert, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he’s an active member of the neighborhood and has experience with contracting
and development. He stated the original applicant of the rezoning case was able
to convince some neighbors to withdraw their opposition because of the original
stipulations that were granted. He reiterated that modifying the stipulations and
doing unpermitted construction is no way to treat the neighborhood.

Dennis Clifford, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, lives
across the street from the site and does not see an increase in height. He stated
the members of the public that spoke in opposition to the request are
exaggerating the impact of the requests and the building modifications will not
negatively affect the neighborhood. He stated the owner is trying to
accommodate the neighbors and indicated he attended the same seminar Mr.
Gilbert attended and that was the only time the parking lot was full.

Greg Nadeau, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, said
the property owner is doing a great job of keeping the property clean. He stated
the new square footage added will not affect the building height and will enhance
the appearance of the building.

Mr. Easton asked Mr. Morris if he knew when the mezzanine was built. Mr.
Morris stated he remembers being inside the building in the 80’s and thinks it
was part of the original rezoning case. He stated the City Council minutes Mr.
Gilbert referred to were referring to a proposed building that was intended to be
30’ in height. Mr. Easton asked if they provided a rendering that indicated the
window height. Mr. Morris stated they did not. He asked Mr. Morris to elaborate
on how a mezzanine is not considered a floor or story. Mr. Morris said the
definition is laid out in the Zoning Ordinance.

He asked Mr. Morris if a mezzanine is not a story, then why is the applicant
requesting to delete Stipulation 4. Mr. Morris stated he is asking to work in the
confines of the height requirement.




Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 5

Mr. Easton stated he received a large amount of correspondence from members
of the public during the review period. He received several more letters and
emails directly leading up to the hearing and did not have an opportunity to
review all the correspondence. In addition, information was presented during the
hearing that he would like to verify, including the definition of mezzanine, any
past rulings related to the mezzanine and the permit history tied to this parcel. He
stated that he would take the case under advisement in order to consider the
multitude of arguments in opposition and support of the request, both as
presented at the hearing and received via mail and/or email.

FINDINGS:

1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan
and rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The
modification is to replace the existing language with a standard language
stipulation regarding general conformance to the site plan and elevations.
The original stipulated site plan depicts an office building situated at the
southeast corner of the lot. The proposed site plan depicts an 8,764
square foot office with a height of 26’-2” measured to the top of ridge. Note
that maximum building height is addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal
is not changing the building footprint so there is no real change to the site
plan. The building height is also not being modified.

The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The
office that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.

The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that
include architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several
building additions including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers.
The west elevation shows a new large dormer with four new windows and
a variety of building materials including stone veneer, decorative wood
pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that match the existing building. The
windows appear to align with the proposed interior addition of office space
to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation features two new turrets
with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level. The east elevation
shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with windows, one at
mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north elevation
features several proposed dormers and roof vents.

2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the
proposed site plan will allow the development to comply with current
ordinance standards for this use.




Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 6

3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of
construction is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met
and the zoning was subsequently vested with adoption of an Official
Supplementary Zoning Map.

4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is
recommended to be denied. The applicant requested a modification to
remove the language requiring the building to be built as one-story. The
existing stipulation was intended to ensure that a one-story building was
built on the site. The original stipulation was approved by City Council on
March 10, 1980 and the minutes reflect that the original plan for the
development was revised from a two-story to a one-story as a result of
public concern related to the height of the building. In addition, it was
noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and
they would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was
concerned about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story
with a height limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the
rationale in the original decision.

At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain
one-story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story
to the building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will
add an additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was
constructed at some point since the original rezoning case approval. The
applicant will be required to submit construction documents to the
Planning and Development Department for approval and will therefore be
required to comply with the stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and
International Building Code requirements, which will be addressed during
the plan review process.

5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to
the Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an
application requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to
require the applicant to record this form and deliver it to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.


1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025 AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.




Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 7

3. Construction to commence within 24 months.

2. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
4. 24 feet.

3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.


Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Saneeya Mir
at saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov or (602) 686-6461 or TTY: 7-1-1.




ENCLOSURE G




PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Hearing Date: May 21, 2025


ENCLOSURE H




PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025


PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025


PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025


ENCLOSURE I




PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Stipulated Site Plan Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE J




PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Stipulated Exhibit Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE K




ENCLOSURE L




ENCLOSURE M
For support correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html




ENCLOSURE N
For opposition correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html




ATTACHMENT C

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
September 4, 2025

ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Existing Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Proposal: 1) Modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site
plan and rendering.
2) Delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
4) Modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Appellant: Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie, PLLC

ACTIONS:

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: N/A

Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation (PHO): The Planning Hearing Officer heard the
request on May 21, 2025 and took the case under advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning
Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed,
approval with a modification and an additional stipulation

Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial as filed, approval with a modification and an
additional stipulation, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, with a modification.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to deny PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6 as
filed, and approve with a modification and an additional stipulation, per the Planning Hearing
Officer recommendation with a modification to keep Stipulation No. 2.

Maker: Gorraiz
Second: James
Vote: 5-1 (Jaramillo)
Absent: Odegard-Begay, Matthews
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan and
rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The modification is to
replace the existing language with a standard language stipulation regarding general
conformance to the site plan and elevations. The original stipulated site plan depicts an
office building situated at the southeast corner of the lot. The proposed site plan depicts
an 8,764 square foot office with a height of 26’-2” measured to the top of ridge. Note
that maximum building height is addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal is not
changing the building footprint so there is no real change to the site plan. The building
height is also not being modified.

The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that resembles a
single-family residential home. The building features a large, pronounced front door,
stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The office that was built onsite was
consistent with the stipulated rendering.

The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that include
architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several building additions
including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers. The west elevation shows a new
large dormer with four new windows and a variety of building materials including stone
veneer, decorative wood pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that match the existing
building. The windows appear to align with the proposed interior addition of office space
to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation features two new turrets with windows
that are also shown on mezzanine level. The east elevation shows several new roof
vents and two new pop-outs with windows, one at mezzanine level and one on the
ground floor. The north elevation features several proposed dormers and roof vents.

2. The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required parking was
added back to ensure the property abides by the originally required parking ratio and
reduce the possibility of parking in the right-of-way.

3. The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of construction is
recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met and the zoning was
subsequently vested with adoption of an Official Supplementary Zoning Map.

4. The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is recommended to be
denied. The applicant requested a modification to remove the language requiring the
building to be built as one-story. The existing stipulation was intended to ensure that a
one-story building was built on the site. The original stipulation was approved by City
Council on March 10, 1980 and the minutes reflect that the original plan for the
development was revised from a two-story to a one-story as a result of public concern
related to the height of the building. In addition, it was noted by the original applicant at
the City Council hearing that the maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine
on the inside and they would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council
was concerned about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story with a
height limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the rationale in the original
decision.

At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain one-story after
construction and they will not be adding an additional story to the building. The
applicant noted that the proposed improvements will add an additional 1,035 square
feet to an existing mezzanine that was constructed at some point since the original
rezoning case approval. The applicant will be required to submit construction
documents to the Planning and Development Department for approval and will therefore
be required to comply with the stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and International
Building Code requirements, which will be addressed during the plan review process.

5. The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the Planning
Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application requirement. An
additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to record this form and
deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.


Stipulations:

1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.

2. THE PARKING RATIO TO BE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 250 SQUARE FEET.

3. Construction to commence within 24 months.

4. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
2. 24 feet.
3.

3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
4. SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




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-1-25—Z-323- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION 79-6 opposition X applicant

Northwest corner of
24th Street and
Missouri Avenue
APPEALED FROM: PC 9/4/2025
701 North 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008


PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 10/15/2025 Kurt Waldier
HEARING Gilbert Blilie PLLC
480-429-3061
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Second story windows should not be permitted on the property that is stipulated to be
a one-story building.


RECEIVED BY: 9/10/2025 RECEIVED ON: Andrew Birkelbach

Joshua Bednarek Dalia Adams
Tricia Gomes Camryn Thompson/Teresa Garcia
Racelle Escolar Micah Alexander
Sarah Stockham GIS
Adam Stranieri Byron Easton (for PHO appeals only)
Heather Klotz Village Planner - Robert Kuhfuss
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant




REVISED 10/16/2024 vcm



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Middle Housing - Z-
TA-1-25-Y (Ordinance G-7446) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-1-25-Y and to
request City Council approval, per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address Middle Housing as required by
Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle Housing (MH)
Overlay District; and amending various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related state requirements related to
Middle Housing. This is a companion case to Z-3-25-4-7-8.

Summary
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to establish the Middle Housing (MH)
Overlay District, Section 632, which will allow the development of middle housing on
lots zoned for single-family use, and apply it to the area located within one mile of
Downtown by January 1, 2026, as required by state law. The secondary purpose is to
make other revisions to multiple sections of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to ensure
proper compliance with the new state requirements.

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 of
the Staff Report (Attachment B).
VPC Information Only: This item was heard for information only by 14 of the 15 Village
Planning Committees throughout September 2025. One of the 15 Village Planning
Committees did not have a quorum. The summaries for these meetings are available in
Attachment C.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025 and
recommended approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report, by a vote of 6-2 (Attachment D).






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





ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE


ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING



T
SECTION 202 (DEFINITIONS), SECTION 507 TAB A (GUIDELINES
FOR DESIGN REVIEW), SECTION 608 (RESIDENCE DISTRICTS),
SECTION 609 (RE-35 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 610 (R1-18 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 611 (R1-10 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 612 (R1-8 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),




AF SECTION 613 (R1-6 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 614 (R-2 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 615 (R-3 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 616 (R-3A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 617 (R-4 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 618 (R-5 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT),
SECTION 619 (RESIDENTIAL R-4A DISTRICT—MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE—GENERAL), SECTION 622 (COMMERCIAL C-1
DISTRICT—NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL), SECTION
(COMMERCIAL C-2 DISTRICT—INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL),
SECTION 624 (COMMERCIAL C-3 DISTRICT—GENERAL
COMMERCIAL), SECTION 632 (HIGH-RISE H-R1 DISTRICT—



HIGH-RISE AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT), SECTION 701 (BULK




R REGULATIONS), SECTION 702 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND
LOADING), SECTION 703 (LANDSCAPING, FENCES, AND
WALLS), SECTION 710 (HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT), SECTION
1203 (LAND USE MATRIX, DOWNTOWN CODE), SECTION 1205
(FRONTAGE ELEMENTS, DOWNTOWN CODE), SECTION 1303
(TRANSECT LOT STANDARDS, WU CODE), SECTION 1306
(LAND USE MATRIX, WU CODE), AND SECTION 1307 (PARKING




D AND LOADING STANDARDS, WU CODE).

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

follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to add new

definitions and revise existing as follows:




Section 202. Definitions.
***
Building Envelope: The area defined on a lot in which all improvements must be made,
including grading and alterations to existing landscaping. These include, but are not
limited to house, accessory buildings, pool, patios, driveways, visitor parking, fencing, or
walls. The building envelope defines the maximum allowable construction/improvement
area on the lot. The building envelope must be identified on all design review submittals.
THE AREA OF A LOT EXCLUSIVE OF ALL REQUIRED YARDS.




T ***
Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is situated. On lots with only single-family residential uses, the primary
dwelling unit shall be considered the main building. WHEN ONLY ONE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED ON A LOT, THAT PDU SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE
MAIN BUILDING. WHEN MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS




AF
PROVIDED ON A LOT, EACH BUILDING WHICH CONTAINS A PDU SHALL BE
CONSIDERED A MAIN BUILDING.

***
Building, Open, Porch: An open building used solely for ingress and egress and not for
occupancy, at least two sides of which shall be at least 50% open.

***
Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for
residential purposes for one family and containing independent living and sleeping areas,
together with independent sanitary (toilet, sink, and bath/shower) and cooking facilities.




R
The presence of cooking facilities conclusively establishes the intent to use for residential
purposes.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section,
subordinate to the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same SINGLE-FAMILY lot.
ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross density.




D
Adaptable Dwelling Units, ADAPTABLE: A dwelling unit designed to be capable of simple
conversion into an accessible dwelling unit.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed having a
shared wall and attached foundations with the primary dwelling unit. An ADU connected
to the primary dwelling unit in any other manner shall not be considered an attached
ADU.




Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed with no
connection to the primary dwelling unit, except as may be explicitly permitted within the
zoning ordinance. A detached ADU may include an integrated garage, carport, or porch.
Two ADUs attached to each other, but not to the primary dwelling unit, shall each be
considered a detached ADU.

Dwelling Unit, Primary (PDU): FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, a dwelling unit that is either
(1) the only dwelling unit provided on a single-family lot, or (2) the largest dwelling unit




T
provided on a single-family lot when the applicable zoning regulations otherwise allow an
accessory dwelling unit or other types of dwelling units. FOR A MULTI-FAMILY LOT OR
DEVELOPMENT, ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE CONSIDERED PRIMARY DWELLING
UNITS.

***




AF
Entry, Front: An arcade, gated arch, covered porch, or COVERED patio, pergola,
COURTYARD, or similar architectural enhancement which clearly delineates the location
of, or AND path to, the front door A PRIMARY ENTRANCE, AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE
FRONT OF THE LOT.

***
Gross Area: The area of a lot or parcel including all dedicated streets, alleys, private
accessways roadway and/or alley easements, and canal rights-of-way. Such boundaries
shall extended to the center of existing abutting street or alley right-of-way. In the case of
an existing partial dedication or easement, the gross area shall not extend beyond what
would be the centerline of the full dedication. Further, parcels abutting: 1) a freeway; or 2)




R
a canal right-of-way when the abutting development has complied with the Canal Bank
Design Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab A, including landscaping of canal bank
right-of-way, shall include NO MORE THAN twenty-five feet of such right-of-way within
THE gross area.

***




D
Guesthouse: See "Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY."


Landscape Setback, Average: Repealed.
***


***
Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more PRIMARY dwelling units
are provided., not including permitted accessory dwelling units.




***
Net Area: The area of a lot or parcel excluding all dedicated streets or alleys ROAD AND
CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY and roadway or alley easements. but including twenty-five
(25) feet of abutting canal right-of-way when the abutting development has complied with
the Canal Bank Design Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab A, including landscaping
of canal bank right-of-way.

***




T
PARKING, COVERED: ONE OR MORE PARKING SPACES PROTECTED FROM THE
SUN AND WEATHER BY A CARPORT, GARAGE, ROOF OVERHANG, OR OTHER
TYPE OF ROOFED STRUCTURE.

***
Perimeter: The boundaries or boundary of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, PLATTED




AF
SUBDIVISION, OR DEVELOPMENT.

***
Planned Residential Development: A DEVELOPMENT OPTION CONSISTING OF a
group of dwelling units with common OPEN SPACE areas which are designed as an
integrated functional unit A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT and with the permissibility of
potential bonus density and considerable flexibility in the selection of building setbacks,
lot areas, DWELLING UNIT TYPES, and street configurationS as long as the public
health, safety and welfare are maintained.

***




R
PORCH: A STRUCTURE, WITH OR WITHOUT A ROOF, THAT IS ATTACHED TO A
BUILDING AND IS AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OPEN ON THE UNATTACHED SIDE(S).

Porch, Open: See "Building, Open Porch".

***




D
Primary Entrance: A ground floor entrance to a commercial lobby or suite that is open to
the public during business hours, or an THE MAIN/VISITOR entrance to a SHARED
residential courtyard, unit, or lobby OR A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. Emergency,
service and storage room entrances are not a primary entranceS.

***




Projection: Any element or embellishment attached to a structure for environmental
protection or architectural enhancement which does not support any portion of
the structure. ANY PORTION OF A PERMITTED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT IS
ATTACHED TO THE MAIN BUILDING AND EXTENDS FROM THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE INTO A REQUIRED YARD OR SETBACK. A PROJECTION IS
CONSIDERED “OPEN” WHEN ALSO MEETING THE DEFINITION OF “OPEN
BUILDING”.

***




T
Residential Density: The number of dwelling units divided by the gross acres of the
legally described development area.

***
Setback, Landscaped, Average: The averaging of a required setback to encourage
variation along a single continuous plane of a building, perimeter wall or street frontage.




AF ***
SETBACK, GARAGE DOOR / CARPORT ENTRY: THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STREET AND COVERED PARKING. THIS DISTANCE
SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THE
GARAGE DOOR OR CARPORT, UNLESS THE PROPERTY HAS AN EASEMENT
DEDICATED ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FOR A SIDEWALK OR TRAIL, IN
WHICH CASE THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE LOT SIDE OF THE
EASEMENT TO THE FACE OF THE GARAGE DOOR OR CARPORT.

SETBACK, LANDSCAPE: A SETBACK WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING




R
IMPROVEMENTS: LIVE PLANT MATERIALS SUCH AS TREES, SHRUBS, AND
GROUNDCOVERS WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM; SIDEWALKS;
REQUIRED DRAINAGE FACILITIES; ENTRY MONUMENTS; SIGNS; PUBLIC ART
INSTALLATIONS, AND WALLS AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THIS ORDINANCE.
PARKING AND MANEUVERING IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN A LANDSCAPE
SETBACK EXCEPT FOR APPROVED STREET AND DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS.




D ***
Shade Structure: A structure, such as a pergola, arbor, or open COVERED porch, which
is designed and used for protection OF OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS from the sun and
which contains at least HAS A MINIMUM OF one (1) side which is at least fifty 50 percent
(50%) open.

***




STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT: THE TYPE OR CLASS OF STREET ON
WHICH THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT MUST ABUT.

***
STREET, PERIMETER: ANY PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY WHICH
FORMS THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF A SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. THIS
DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CANAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY, UNLESS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ALSO A NAMED STREET USED
FOR THE LEGAL ADDRESSES OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES.




T ***
Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into three or more lots, tracts or
parcels PARCELS of which the original land area is greater than two and one half acres,
Land for which a subdivision plat has been APPROVED AND recorded IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE SECTION 32-32, OR




AF
BY MARICOPA COUNTY IF RECORDED PRIOR TO ANNEXATION., and for any
condominium, community apartment, townhouse or similar project.

Subdivision, Average Lot: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the
number of dwelling units LOTS in a development rather than by minimum lot size. SEE
“PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”.

Subdivision, Conventional: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the
density provisions within each zoning district, and by development standards related to
lot width, the management of stormwater, the provision of infrastructure requirements
and constraints related to the property topography or configuration. SEE “SUBDIVISION,




R
STANDARD”.

Subdivision, Planned Residential Development: See "Planned Residential Development".

SUBDIVISION, Single-Family Infill (SFI) Development: A type of single-family
development consisting of townhouses and a limited number of detached dwelling units.




D
Perimeter standards are defined and potential bonus density and design flexibility allow
for quality individual property ownership within a larger development. A SUBDIVISION
APPROVED AND DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.




SUBDIVISION, STANDARD: A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE STANDARD OPTION OF A
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. A SUBDIVISION PLAT SUBTITLED “A
CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION”, “SUBDIVISION OPTION”, OR HAVING NO
SUBTITLE SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED A STANDARD SUBDIVISION.

Subdivision, Zero Lot Line: A subdivision in which the main building may be constructed
without a side yard.

***



T
TRACT: A PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED WITHIN A SUBDIVISION WHICH IS NOT
CONSIDERED A LOT AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET MINIMUM LOT
DIMENSIONS. A TRACT MAY BE DEVELOPED ONLY WITH SUBDIVISION
AMENITIES, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPE, OR OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED FOR THE TRACT IN THE




AF
DEDICATION STATEMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT.

***
Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground
upward except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal
distance from a building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted
projects PROJECTIONS, to the property line opposite such building line in the side or
rear yards, or to the street right-of-way or easement in the front yard; provided, however,
that where a future width line is established by the provisions of this ordinance for any
street bounding the lot, then such measurement shall be taken from the line of the
building to such future width line.




R ***

SECTION 2: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A (Guidelines for Design Review)

is amended to read as follows:




D
Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review
Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review

***




II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines
indicated with the markers (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced
in the same manner as indicated in Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R),
(R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as (R).

***

C. Subdivision and Single-Family Detached RESIDENTIAL LOT Design
Review.




8. T ***

Single-Family Detached SUBDIVISION DIVERSITY Design
Review. New single-family detached dwelling units, lots having a
single duplex or triplex, manufactured homes, and modular homes




AF shall be subject to design review SUBDIVISIONS HAVING AT
LEAST TEN PERCENT OF LOTS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 65
FEET IN WIDTH, AND HAVING DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS; AND MANUFACTURED AND/OR MODULAR
HOME SUBDIVISIONS REGARDLESS OF LOT WIDTH, ARE
SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW DIVERSITY GUIDELINES 8.1
THROUGH 8.4, as follows (R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where ten percent or
more of the lots are equal to or less than 65 feet in width shall
incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.




R (b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or
parcel of 65 feet in width or less, shall incorporate Design
Guidelines Section 8.5. This requirement includes lots with a
single duplex or triplex when not located in a subdivision




D subject to Section 507 Tab A.II.C.8(a).

(c) Dwelling units on lots zoned or designated HP are exempt
from the provisions of Design Guidelines Section 8.5, so long
as the plans are reviewed and approved through historic
preservation prior to issuance of any building permits.




(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of
lot width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1
through 8.4.

The design guidelines in each of the following sections (subdivision design,
housing design, garage treatment, and community safety) must be satisfied




T
in one of two ways. The first method, called the standard approach, is to
meet each of the design guidelines as written in the following tables. The
second method, called the alternative approach, allows consideration of
creative design solutions on a section by section basis, as long as the intent
of that section has been met. Either method may be used for all or some of
the following sections. For example, an applicant may choose the standard




AF
approach for the subdivision design and garage treatment sections and the
alternative approach for the housing design and community safety sections
or the standard approach may be used for all four sections. Whether the
alternative approach is acceptable will be determined by the design advisor
of the Planning and Development Department.

Diversity: The goal of diversity is to provide a variety of subdivision and
housing designs which lend visual interest and distinctive character and
identity to the community. This goal is addressed in two subsections,
subdivision design and housing design.




R 8.1. Subdivision Design. Provide subdivision designs which
address the goal of diversity by incorporating these or
substantially equivalent design characteristics: 1) Vary the
building’s relationship to the street, 2) Vary the driveway
orientation or location, 3) Vary the relationship between
buildings, and 4) Vary street orientation.




D Design Guidelines: All are required (R*), unless otherwise
noted.

***




8.5. Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these
individual unit design standards is to ensure a minimum level
of design quality for detached single-family dwelling units,
duplexes, manufactured homes, and modular homes. For
information on relief from requirements (R) and (R*), and
presumptions (P), refer to Section 507.C of the Zoning
Ordinance.

(a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered




(b) T
parking space located in a garage or under a carport.
(R)

The front yard, excluding areas approved for vehicle
access, should be landscaped with the following
elements: (P)




AF (1)


(2)


(3)
A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater,
drought resistant, accent tree.

A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs.

Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department.




R (4) An irrigation system.

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.




D (c) Required covered parking shall not be located more
than ten feet closer to the front property line than the
front entry. (R*)




Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in
front of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential
character and compatibility with surrounding residences
is negatively impacted.

(d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, nondecorative corrugated metal and fencing
made or topped with razor, concertina, or barbed wire.


(e)
(R*)



T
Development of lots with more than one dwelling unit
should provide a single, common access drive to
parking areas. (P)




AF (f)
Rationale: Shared access and common parking
minimize unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the
streetscape. Common parking areas also reduce the
paved area of a site.

All dwelling units should provide the following
architectural design elements: (P)

(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of
the building.




R (2)




(3)
Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building.

Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or




D (4)
single doors.

Materials such as untextured concrete,
unfinished block, steel panels, and shiny or
highly reflective detailing should not be used as a
predominant exterior material.




Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture.

(g) Garage doors facing the public street and attached to
the primary dwelling unit should not exceed 50 percent
of the building width. (P)

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic
focus of a house; they should complement and appear




(h) T
subordinate to the main structure. This is particularly
important if a duplex or triplex is constructed.

A front entry shall be provided that faces and is visible
from the street, and includes an architectural feature to
call attention to it (such as a porch, entry patio, stoop,




AF (i)
awning/canopy, courtyard, or archway). For lots having
more than one dwelling unit, a minimum of one unit
shall comply with this requirement. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade
adds to the residential character of new dwelling units
and provides eyes on the street.

Manufactured homes shall provide the following
additional architectural design elements:




R (1)




(2)
Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall
be used as a predominant exterior material. (P)

The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of
3/12 for units 28 feet or less in width and be




D (3)
covered with shingles, tile or metal, excluding
aluminum. (R*)

A minimum 50-square-foot recessed entry or
covered porch shall be provided along the front
entry of the building. (R*)




(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors
that are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P)

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest
finished grade. (R*)

(6)



T
The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.




AF
Section 507 Tab A, II.C.9 Residential Lot Design Review
9.




a.
RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW. THE FOLLOWING DESIGN
REVIEW REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS
THAT ARE 65 FEET OR LESS IN WIDTH AND HAVE FOUR OR
FEWER PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT, AND ANY LOT
HAVING A MANUFACTURED OR MODULAR HOME, WITH THE
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

THE LOT IS WITHIN AN APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY
INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION;




R b.


c.
THE LOT IS SUBJECT TO SECTION II.C.8 (SUBDIVISION
DIVERSITY DESIGN REVIEW); OR

THE LOT IS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED




D 9.1
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING
PERMITS.

ALL DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT SHALL EXHIBIT A
DESIGN SCALE, FORM, AND CHARACTER OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME. (P)




RATIONALE: NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD RESPECT
THE DESIGN AND CHARACTER OF EXISTING
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS, REGARDLESS OF THE
NUMBER OF UNITS PROVIDED ON A LOT. BUILDING
MATERIALS SHOULD MATCH OR COMPLEMENT THE
MATERIALS USED ON EXISTING HOMES IN THE VICINITY.

9.2 THE FRONT YARD, EXCLUDING AREAS APPROVED FOR
VEHICLE ACCESS, SHOULD BE LANDSCAPED WITH THE




T
FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: (P)

(a)


(b)
A MINIMUM OF ONE, TWO INCH CALIPER OR
GREATER, DROUGHT RESISTANT, ACCENT TREE.

A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE GALLON OR GREATER,




AF (c)




(d)
DROUGHT RESISTANT SHRUBS.

DUSTPROOFED WITH GROUND COVER, TURF,
ROCK, DECOMPOSED GRANITE, OR EQUIVALENT
MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

RATIONALE: LANDSCAPING CONTRIBUTES TO AN
ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT, PROVIDES SHADE, AND




R
9.3
CONTRIBUTES TO NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY.

A MINIMUM OF ONE PRIMARY ENTRANCE SHALL BE
PROVIDED WHICH FACES AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE
STREET. (R*)




D
9.4




9.5
FOR TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, WINDOWS, BALCONIES
(WITH DOORS FOR ACCESS), OR DECKS SHALL BE
PROVIDED ON THE FRONT FAÇADE FOR A MINIMUM OF
ONE-QUARTER OF THE BUILDING WIDTH. (R*)

EACH DWELLING UNIT SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE
COVERED PARKING SPACE. (R*)




9.6 FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL
BE NO WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE
BUILDING ENVELOPE AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. (R*)

9.7 GARAGES AND CARPORTS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED
MORE THAN TEN FEET CLOSER TO THE FRONT
PROPERTY LINE THAN THE CLOSEST PRIMARY
ENTRANCE. (R*)

9.8

T
WALLS, FENCES, AND ENCLOSURE MATERIALS SHALL
NOT INCLUDE CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH, OR WITHOUT,
PLASTIC OR METAL SLATS, SHEETING,
NONDECORATIVE CORRUGATED METAL AND FENCING
MADE OR TOPPED WITH RAZOR, CONCERTINA, OR




AF
9.9
BARBED WIRE. (R*)

MANUFACTURED HOMES SHALL PROVIDE THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
ELEMENTS:

(a) MATERIALS SUCH AS WOOD, HARDBOARD, BRICK
VENEER, HARDIPLANK, STUCCO, OR HORIZONTAL
VINYL SIDING SHALL BE USED AS A
PREDOMINANT EXTERIOR MATERIAL. (P)




R (b)




(c)
THE EXPOSED ROOF PITCH SHALL BE AT A
MINIMUM OF 3/12 FOR UNITS 28 FEET OR LESS IN
WIDTH AND BE COVERED WITH SHINGLES, TILE
OR METAL, EXCLUDING ALUMINUM. (R*)

A MINIMUM 50 SQUARE FOOT FRONT ENTRY




D (d)
SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE STREET SIDE OF
THE BUILDING. (R*)

PERMANENT ACCESS TO THE FRONT ENTRY
SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH MATERIALS AND
COLORS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
DWELLING UNIT. (P)




(e) A MASONRY STEM WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED
UNDER THE DWELLING UNIT WITH NO MORE THAN
SEVEN INCHES OF EXPOSED FOUNDATION
MEASURED FROM HIGHEST FINISHED GRADE. (R*)

(f) THE EXPOSED MASONRY STEM WALL COLOR
SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE TO THE DWELLING UNIT.
(P)




T***

SECTION 3: That Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts), is amended to

read as follows:ction 608. Residential Districts




AF
Section 608. Residential Districts.

A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide
areas of the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these
areas from the distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate
association with nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential,
limited nonresidential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are
designed to promote the creation and maintenance of areas in which individuals or
families may pursue residential activities with reasonable access to open space,
and streets or roads, in a setting which is not negatively impacted by adjacent




R uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions placed upon them to limit
impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a public hearing
through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative impacts to
surrounding residential uses.

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 619 and 635 are




D designed to establish the character of new residential development and also to
preserve the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to new
development, these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the
development and improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the City Code.

This section applies to the residential districts in Sections 609 through 619, in
addition to Section 635 (Planned Area Development) when specified.




***
B. Applicability. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS RE-35, R1-
18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A (SECTIONS 609
THROUGH 619), AND WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS FOR OTHER
ZONING DISTRICTS.
of Development Options. The development of any parcel of land shall be in
accordance with the standards contained in any one development option as
contained in Sections 609 through 619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not




T
being further subdivided and located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts
(Sections 609 and 610) shall be in accordance with the requirements for the
standard subdivision development option (a), as contained in Sections 609 and
610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a subdivision platted prior to May 1, 1998,
not being further subdivided, and located in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning
districts (Sections 611 through 619), development shall be in accordance with the




AF
requirements of the conventional subdivision option as contained in Sections 611
through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected
development option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was
subdivided or developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in
accordance with the standards under which the initial subdivision or development
occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1,
1998, shall be considered as follows:




R 1.




2.
Residential development with a site plan approved in accordance with
Section 507 shall be considered under the planned residential development
option.

Residential development with an approved subdivision setback exhibit shall




D 3.
be considered under the average lot development option if located in the
RE-35 through R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

Any other prior residential development shall be considered under the
development option selected when the property was subdivided.




A use permit shall not be required for new development on previously subdivided
property or property on which there is an approved site plan if the new
development is in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance.

***




T
AF
R
D
Section 608.D Residential Districts Land Use Matrix
D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

Table 608.D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ac) pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
(ADU)
(ac)
Duplex
Triplex
D
Guestroom(s) pc3
np
np
pc3
np
np
pc3
pc4
np
pc3
pc4
np
pc3
pc4
np
pc3
pc4
pc5
pc3
pc4
pc5
pc3
pc4
pc5
pc3
pc4
pc5
pc3
pc4
pc5
pc3
pc4
pc5
pc3
pc4
pc5
Single-Family Attached pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc6 np
SUBDIVISION up5 up5 up5 up5 up5 up6
Multi-Family np np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Residential Convenience
(ac)
Market
Off-Site Manufactured Home
Developments
R
np

np
np

np
np

np
np

np
np

np
np

up35
np

up35
pc8

up35
pc8

up35
pc8

up35
pc8

up35
pc8

np
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in the table.
AF
T
Section 608.E Land Use Conditions

E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted
one single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling
units, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

a.



T
When a lot has no more than one single-family detached primary
dwelling, two ADUs are permitted in addition to the primary dwelling
unit. A third ADU may be permitted when at least one of the ADUs
qualifies as affordable housing and the net lot size is a minimum
43,560 square feet. However, lots having a duplex or triplex, single-
family attached units or any multi-family dwelling units are not




3.


4.
AF
b.
permitted any ADUs.

An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling unit may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

Duplex.

a. Single-Family Lots. One duplex is permitted per lot when allowed by
the underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must




R b.
be of the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit
two dwelling units.

Multi-Family Lots. Duplexes are permitted when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of
the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit the




D 4.




5.
number of dwelling units proposed.

SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-FAMILY LOT
WHEN THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NO
REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

Triplex.




a. Single-Family Lots. One triplex is permitted per lot when allowed by
the underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must
be of the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit
three dwelling units.

b. Multi-Family Lots. Triplexes are permitted when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of
the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit the
number of dwelling units proposed.

5.

T
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION. SFI SUBDIVISIONS PER
THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I ARE PERMITTED
WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND
BY USE PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE AREAS
DEPICTED IN FIGURE 608.I.1.

6.



AF
Single-Family Attached Dwelling Unit. One single-family attached dwelling
unit is permitted per single-family lot when allowed by the underlying zoning
district and development option.
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION—R-4A ONLY. SFI
SUBDIVISIONS PER THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I
ARE PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AND BY USE PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE
AREAS DEPICTED IN FIGURE 608.I.1. EXCEPT FOR THE PERMITTED
DENSITY, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL BE THE SAME AS
FOR THE R-4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, AS




R
7.
MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

Multi-Family Dwelling Units. Multi-family dwelling units are permitted when
allowed by the underlying zoning district and development option EXCEPT
WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY
SUBDIVISION.




D
35.
***

Off-site manufactured home developments are permitted with use permit
approval per Section 307, and subject to the development regulations
provided in Section 608.F.7 608.J.




Section 608.F (General Development Regulations)
F. Special GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Regulations.

1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 714, FUTURE WIDTH LINES, unless
exempted by this section.

2. In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width
prescribed for that street by the street classification map, and amendments




3.
T
thereto, has been dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street
from which side the required width of dedication has been made shall be
deemed to have frontage on a street.

No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of
less than that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or




AF
collector street or 25 feet for all other streets except for single-family
attached development individual dwelling units UNLESS THE LOT IS PART
OF A PLATTED SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH MODIFIED
STREET STANDARDS.

a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option
or for development built under a planned area development district, a
minimum of 16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when
all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.




R (2)

(3)
There are no restrictions to public access to the street.

Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back
of curb.




D (4)


(5)

(6)
Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.




4. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

5. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the
following listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas,
noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on
which such items are displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.

b.

c.
T
Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned
by persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the
premises.




6.

AF
d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or
ultimate use on other than the subject premises.

Single-Family Infill (SFI). Single-family infill development regulations may be
applied in zoning districts where the SFI development option is offered, but
only when the development falls within the infill development district
identified in the general plan, or with use permit approval within the following
areas located outside of the infill development district:

Figure 608.F.6. Single-Family Infill Development Areas




R
D
D
R
AF
T
a. The SFI development option does not eliminate any redevelopment
area, special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur
between the requirements of the SFI development option and
redevelopment areas, overlay zoning districts, special planning
districts, and specific plans, the requirements of the overlay zoning
districts, special planning districts, redevelopment areas or specific
plans shall apply.

b. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the SFI development option.

c.

T
Dwelling Units. The SFI development option is intended primarily for
single-family attached dwelling units; however, up to 20 percent of the
units in a development may be single-family detached dwelling units
to allow for variety and efficiency of design.




AF
d.
(1) Any provided detached dwelling units shall comply with the
same development regulations applicable to that SFI
development.

Design Requirements.

(1)




(2)
Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a
feature such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

Required covered parking spaces shall not front on perimeter




R (3)



(4)
street rights-of-way.

Individual unit rear yards shall not abut perimeter street ROW
or an adjacent perimeter street landscape area.

Attached dwelling units constructed in a row shall not exceed a




D
e.
total length of 200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide
open area.

Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.




(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape
tract or community-maintained landscaping abutting the street,
except when within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape
tract or community-maintained landscaping abutting the street.

(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way and




T
adjacent to a single-family residential district or historic
preservation designated property must provide a minimum ten-
foot landscape setback. Walls/fences up to six feet high within
private rear yards may be provided within the perimeter
setback so long as the required landscape is still provided.




AF (4) Trees shall be provided in required landscape setbacks at a
minimum rate of 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings, as
approved by the PDD landscape architect, subject to the
following:

(a)


(b)
Fifty percent of the required trees shall be minimum
one-and-one-half-inch caliper at the time of installation.

Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be
minimum two-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the
time of installation.




R (5)
(c) Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be
minimum three-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the
time of installation.

A minimum of five five-gallon shrubs per tree shall be




D
f.




g.
provided.

Open Space Regulations. The only walls/fences allowed within
required common area open space are required pool security fences
and other necessary security fences, as approved by PDD.

Parking Requirements. Section 702 applies to SFI development,
except where specifically modified by this section.




(1) Within the Infill Development District: one parking space per
dwelling unit must be provided that is covered or located within
a garage.

(2) Within the applicable SFI area that is not located within the
infill development district: two parking spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided that are covered or located within a garage.

(3) The required spaces for each dwelling unit must be located on


(4)
T
the same lot as the unit for which they are provided.

A minimum 0.25 additional unreserved guest parking space
per dwelling unit must be provided within
any SFI development.




AF
h. Alley Access and Maneuvering.

(1)


(2)


(3)
All maneuvering for on-site parking must be located on private
property and not in public ROW.

Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is
permitted within the infill development district.

Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is
permitted applicable area outside of the infill development
district if all three conditions are met, as follows:




R (a)


(b)
The site is not across the alley from either a single-
family or historic preservation zoning district;

Alley access is specifically approved as part of the use
permit hearing; and




D
i.


j.
(c) All necessary technical appeals have been approved.

Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required setbacks
along perimeter street rights-of-way.

Signage is subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1,
Single-Family Residential.




7. Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments. Off-site manufactured home
development is subject to use permit approval in the C-1, C-2, and C-3
districts, in addition to zoning districts indicated in Section 608.D; and
subject to the following additional development regulations:

a. The provisions of Section 703.B do not apply to off-site manufactured
home developments.

b. These regulations apply to development of a single lot or parcel, not


c.
T
to be further subdivided.

Placement for each off-site manufactured home shall be provided as
follows:




AF (1)




(2)


(3)
There shall be a minimum of 20 feet between off-site
manufactured homes and ten feet between awnings and
canopies. All annexes or structural additions shall be
considered part of the off-site manufactured home.

There shall be at least 40 feet between off-site manufactured
homes on opposite sides of a private accessway.

No off-site manufactured home, annex or structural addition
shall be closer than eight feet to any private accessway or
private drive.




R d.




e.
Each off-site manufactured home space shall have private outdoor
living space of at least 150 square feet. The dimension of this space
shall be at least 15 feet in width.

At each occupied off-site manufactured home space, there shall be




D f.
an enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other bulky items
convenient to the space with a storage capacity of at least 150 cubic
feet.

All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall be
landscaped and maintained in accordance with the approved
development review documents required under Section 507.




g. Screening the perimeter of an off-site manufactured home
development by a wall or other approved material may be required as
a condition of use permit approval.

h. There shall be a network of pedestrian walkways connecting off-site
manufactured home spaces with each other and with development
facilities and amenities.

i. If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened storage yard
or yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Such storage yards shall




j.
T
have a minimum of 60 square feet of storage space for each off-site
manufactured home space in the development and shall be located
so as to not detract from surrounding properties. All boats and
recreational vehicles shall be parked in the storage yard.

Each off-site manufactured home shall (1) be affixed permanently to




AF
k.


l.




m.
the ground or (2) have skirting around its perimeter to screen its
wheels and undercarriage.

All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio antenna
system shall be underground.

Not more than 15 percent of the spaces in any one off-site
manufactured home development shall be developed or used for
recreational vehicles.

Development of off-site manufactured home communities shall be




R
n.
under the planned residential development option applicable in the
underlying zoning district.

Private drives may be used for access to each off-site manufactured
home.




D
o. There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of the off-
site manufactured home development dedicated or reserved as
usable common open space land. Common open space lands shall
be clearly designated on the plan as to the character of use and
development but shall not include:

(1) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an individual
tenant or owner; nor




(2) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way; nor

(3) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas; nor

(4) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the site; nor

(5) Golf courses.

Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure permanent




T
retention of open space land area resulting from the application of
these regulations, either by private reservation for the use of the
residents within the development or by dedication to the public, or a
combination thereof.

Section 608.G (Development Options)
G.




AF
Reserved.
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. EACH RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RE-35,
R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A) PROVIDES
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
ADDITIONALLY, DIFFERENT SETS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(“DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS”) ARE PROVIDED WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING
DISTRICTS.

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

a. DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL OR LAND SHALL BE IN




R b.
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET
FORTH FOR A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

A DEVELOPMENT OPTION FOR A PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED
ESTABLISHED IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE:




D (1)




(2)
A PRELIMINARY OR FINAL SITE PLAN HAS BEEN
APPROVED FOR A PROPERTY AND IS STILL
CONSIDERED VALID PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
507.K.6.

THE PROPERTY HAS STRUCTURES FOR WHICH
BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS FOR A DEVELOPMENT OPTION WHICH WAS
VALID AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.



(3) THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A PLATTED AND RECORDED
SUBDIVISION (ALSO SEE SUBSECTION G.2 BELOW).

c. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS ALREADY BEEN
ESTABLISHED FOR A PROPERTY, SUBSEQUENT
DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE
ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL PER SECTION 307 IS OBTAINED, WITH THE




T
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

(1) THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REZONED PER SECTION 506
(BASE ZONING ONLY; DOES NOT INCLUDE HEIGHT OR
DENSITY WAIVERS, SPECIAL PERMITS, OR ADDITION OF
OVERLAY DISTRICTS); OR




AF (2)




(3)




(4)
THE PROPERTY IS A PREVIOUSLY PLATTED
SUBDIVISION AND THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION IS TO BE
REPLATTED; OR

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND IS BEING PLATTED AS A
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION; OR

THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A MASTER PLAT SUCH AS:
STATE PLATS; AGRICULTURAL/RANCHING




R SUBDIVISIONS; PLATS USED TO MAKE DEDICATIONS
AND CREATE DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS WITHIN MASTER-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; OR OTHER ATYPICAL
SUBDIVISION PLATS AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR.




D
2.
d. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NEVER BEEN ESTABLISHED
FOR A PROPERTY, ANY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION
MAY BE CHOSEN.

PLATTED SUBDIVISION LOTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OPTION STATED IN THE TITLE
OF THE PLAT, AS FOLLOWS:




a. DEVELOPMENTS HAVING AN APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN OR
APPROVED SETBACK EXHIBIT ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY INSTEAD CHOOSE TO
APPLY THE STANDARDS APPROVED PER THE PLAN/EXHIBIT, IF
DIFFERENT FROM CURRENT STANDARDS. HOWEVER, ANY
AMENDMENT TO A FINAL SITE PLAN OR SETBACK EXHIBIT
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
OPTIONS AND STANDARDS.

b. PLATS TITLED “STANDARD”, “SUBDIVISION”, “CONVENTIONAL”,




c.
T
OR HAVING NO REFERENCE TO A DEVELOPMENT OPTION
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF
THE STANDARD OPTION.

PLATS TITLED “AVERAGE LOT” OR “PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT




AF
d.




e.
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION.

PLATS TITLED “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED” OR “SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION, IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.

PLATS TITLED “PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 635 WHEN ZONED
PAD-1 THROUGH PAD-15. OTHER PLATS WITH THE SAME




R TITLE BUT NOT ZONED PAD-1 THROUGH PAD-15 SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, OR THE BASE
REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IF THE PRD OPTION IS NOT
OFFERED.




D
f. FOR OTHER PLAT TITLES NOT IDENTIFIED WITHIN THIS
SECTION, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL DETERMINE
THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND REGULATIONS.




3. STANDARD OPTION. WHEN A ZONING DISTRICT PROVIDES
MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FOR THE STANDARD OPTION ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR THAT
DISTRICT. IF ONLY ONE SET OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS
PROVIDED FOR A ZONING DISTRICT, THOSE STANDARDS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED THE STANDARD OPTION.

4. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION. WHEN THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS UTILIZED FOR A




T
SUBDIVISION AND/OR DEVELOPMENT, A SITE PLAN MUST BE
SUBMITTED, REVIEWED, AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 507. THE SITE PLAN SHALL ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE
WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PRD
OPTION.




AF
Section 608.H (Bonus Provisions)




R
H. Reserved. BONUS PROVISIONS.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION DENSITY BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING
THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, SINGLE-
FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-
3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY AS




D SHOWN IN TABLE 608.H.1 BY PROVIDING SITE AMENITIES AND
ENHANCEMENTS FROM TABLE 608.H.2, UP TO THE MAXIMUM
DENSITY PERMITTED BY THE DISTRICT:




TABLE 608.H.1
PERMISSIBLE DENSITY BONUS BY DISTRICT

0.05 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
RE-35 AND R1-18
EARNED

0.10 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R1-10, R1-8, AND R1-6
EARNED

0.25 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R-2, R-3, AND R-3A
EARNED


R-4 AND R-5

T
0.50 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
EARNED




AF
R
D
TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT

INCREASE COMMON LANDSCAPED SETBACK
10 PTS. 1. ADJACENT TO PERIMETER STREET TO A MINIMUM 20
FEET.



10 PTS./FEATURE 2.
T
PROVIDE A MAJOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A
MINIMUM 1,500 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

PROVIDE A MINOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A




AF
5 PTS./FEATURE




20 PTS.
3.




4.
MINIMUM 1,000 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

STREETSCAPE

PROVIDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS SEPARATED FROM
THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 5-FOOT WIDE PLANTING
AREA. PLANTING AREA SHALL BE PLANTED WITH
MINIMUM 24-INCH BOX SIZE TREES PLANTED AT A
RATE OF 1 PER LOT, TURF OR 5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS
FOR EVERY TREE AND GROUND COVER; AND




R
10 PTS. 5.
SUPPLIED WITH AN ADEQUATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

PROVIDE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION FOR ALL
FRONT YARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH
SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF 1 24-INCH BOX TREE,
5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER.




D
5 PTS.




10 PTS.
5A.




6.
RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 5 BONUS POINTS FOR
EACH ADDITIONAL TREE (MINIMUM 15-GALLON).

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR DRIVEWAYS AND ON-LOT
SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST
OF CONSISTENT ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE
FEATURES, E.G. INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS,
BORDERS.




TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE STREETS. PARTIAL
10 PTS. 7. TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.




10 PTS. 8.
T
PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL
TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.,
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.




AF
2 PTS./FEATURE


5 PTS.



5 PTS.
9.


10.



11.
PROVIDE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLANDS.

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET FURNITURE
PACKAGE CONSISTING OF CUSTOM STREET SIGNS,
BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES.

PROVIDE CUSTOM STREETLIGHT STANDARDS
AND/OR FIXTURES.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREETSCAPE PLAN,




R
25 PTS. 12.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR OTHER MEANS
WHICH SHALL ADDRESS VISUAL INTEREST AT A
PEDESTRIAN SCALE; RHYTHM, FORM AND MASSING;
AND RELATIONSHIP OF UNITS TO EACH OTHER FOR
THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. SUCH PLAN SHALL
PROVIDE ELEVATIONS, COLOR OPTIONS, AND LIMIT
WHICH MODEL(S)/ELEVATION(S) MAY OR MAY NOT




D
25 PTS.




10 PTS.
13.




14.
BE SITED ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

PROVIDE HOUSE PLANS WHICH DEMONSTRATE AN
ENHANCED LEVEL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS
APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR.

PROVIDE PREMIUM GRADE EXTERIOR MATERIALS
AND FINISHES AS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN
ADVISOR.




TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMON OPEN SPACE, SUCH
2 PTS. 15. THAT EACH ADDITIONAL 1% OF COMMON OPEN
SPACE EARNS 2 BONUS POINTS.


10 PTS./FEATURE 16.

T
PROVIDE MAJOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES (E.G., TENNIS COURTS, POOL,
COMMUNITY MEETING ROOM).

PROVIDE MINOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES (E.G., BIKEPATH OR MULTI-USE TRAIL




AF
5 PTS./FEATURE




2.
17.
WHICH PROVIDE AN INTERNAL LINKAGE WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS A CONNECTION TO
SIMILAR FACILITIES LOCATED AT THE PERIMETER
OF THE SITE).


MULTI-FAMILY OPEN SPACE BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL OPTION, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE R-2, R-
3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN A ONE PERCENT
DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH TWO PERCENT OF COMMON OPEN
SPACE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.




R a. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SHALL
DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF COMMON OPEN SPACE AS
PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN SPACE
SHALL NOT INCLUDE:




D 1.

2.

3.
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS BETWEEN OR
IN FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN GENERAL, AREAS
RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL
TENANTS.




4. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE EXTERIOR
BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

5. GOLF COURSES.

b. IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. IN ORDER TO OVERCOME A




T
DEMONSTRATED DEFICIENCY IN THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING FOR
PERSONS OF LOW INCOME, INCENTIVES ARE ESTABLISHED TO
FOSTER THE PROVISION OF SUCH HOUSING.

a. APPLICABILITY. ALL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN A
ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION




AFb.
608 PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 202.

DENSITY BONUS.

(1) ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR EVERY
TWO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, PROVIDED THAT
THE OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED 10
PERCENT BEYOND THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE
ALLOWED.




R (2) A DENSITY BONUS AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ANY DISTRICT
AND MAY BE IN ADDITION TO A DENSITY BONUS
EARNED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 608.H.1 or
608.H.2.




D c. OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS
WITHIN A PROJECT SHALL BE AS APPROVED BY THE HOUSING
DEPARTMENT.

Section 608.I (Single-Family Infill Subdivisions)
I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the
development standards tables for each district:




1. Minimum lot dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site.

a. Density Bonus Points. Additional density may be granted by earning
density bonus points by providing site enhancements from the table
below, as follows:

(1)



T
Single-family detached development in the R1-10 through R1-
6 districts (Sections 611 through 613) may earn increased
density of 0.1 du/ac for each ten density bonus points earned
when also using the planned residential development option,
up to the maximum density allowed by the district.




AF
Bonus Points
(2) Single-family detached development in the R-2 through R-4A
districts (Sections 614 through 619) may earn increased
density of 0.275 du/ac for each five density bonus points
earned when also using the planned residential development
option, up to the maximum density allowed by the district.
However, at least half of the bonus points used to achieve
densities in excess of 7.5 du/ac must be from the architectural
design bonus point category.


Enhancement Category




R
10 pts.


10 pts./feature
PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT
1.


2.
Increase common landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter street to 20' avg./15' minimum.

Provide a major entry feature with a minimum 1,500
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter




D
5 pts./feature




20 pts.
3.



STREETSCAPE

1.
landscaping and right-of-way).

Provide a minor entry feature with a minimum 1,000
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter
landscaping and right-of-way).



Provide detached sidewalks separated from the curb
by a minimum 5'-wide planting area. Planting area




shall be planted with minimum 24"-box size trees
planted at a rate of 1 per lot, turf or 5 5-gallon shrubs
for every tree and ground cover; and supplied with
an adequate irrigation system.

10 pts. 2. Provide landscaping and irrigation for all front yards
within the development which shall include a
minimum of 1 24"-box tree, 5 5-gallon shrubs, and
ground cover.

5 pts. 2a. Receive an additional 5 bonus points for each
additional tree (minimum 15-gallon).

10 pts. 3.

T
Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for
driveways and on-lot sidewalks. Partial treatment
shall consist of consistent accent treatment for all
like features, e.g. intersections, crosswalks, borders.

10 pts.




10 pts.
AF
2 pts./feature

5 pts.
4.




5.




6.

7.
Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private streets. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private sidewalks. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.,
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

Provide landscaped median islands.

Provide a comprehensive street furniture package




R
5 pts.



25 pts.
consisting of custom street signs, bus shelters and
benches.

Provide custom streetlight standards and/or fixtures.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

1. Provide a comprehensive streetscape plan,




D development agreement or other means which shall
address visual interest at a pedestrian scale; rhythm,
form and massing; and relationship of units to each
other for the entire subdivision. Such plan shall
provide elevations, color options, and limit which
model(s)/elevation(s) may or may not be sited on
individual lots.




25 pts. 2. Provide house plans which demonstrate an
enhanced level of architectural design as approved
by the design advisor.

10 pts. 3. Provide premium grade exterior materials and
finishes as approved by the design advisor.

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

2 pts. 1. Provide additional common area, such that each
additional 1% of common area earns 2 bonus points.

10 pts./feature


5 pts./feature
2.


3.
T
Provide major private recreational amenities (e.g.,
tennis courts, pool, community meeting room).

Provide minor private recreational amenities (e.g.,
bikepath or multi-use trail which provide an internal
linkage within the development as well as a
connection to similar facilities located at the




AF b.
perimeter of the site).


Additional Common Area/Open Space. Additional density may be
granted by providing additional common area above any minimum
requirements as follows:

(1) Qualifying developments (listed below) may earn:

(a) A one percent density bonus for each four percent of
basic common area; or




R (b)


(c)
A one percent density bonus for each two percent of
improved common area.

The Planning and Development Department shall
determine the adequacy of both basic and improved
common areas as part of the development review




D process. Open space shall not include:

(i)

(ii)
Public right-of-way.

Vehicular drives or parking areas.




(iii) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in
front of units; or, in general, areas reserved for
the exclusive use of individual tenants.

(iv) Required setback areas at the exterior
boundaries of the site.

(v) Golf courses.

(d) In no case shall the density of the development exceed


(2)
T
the maximum density allowed by the district.

Developments qualifying for the additional common area/open
space density bonus are as follows:

(a) Single-family development in the RE-35 and R1-18




AF (b)




(c)
zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610), when also
using the planned residential development option.

Single-family attached development in the R1-10
through R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through
619), when using the planned residential development
option.

Single-family development in the R-2 through R-4A
zoning districts (Sections 614 through 619), when using
the single-family infill development option.




R (d) Multi-family development in the R1-10 through R-4A
zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619), when using
the planned residential development option.




D
3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September


4.

5.
13, 1981.



T
Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2.

6.


7.




8.
AF
Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2.

Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Allowed Development: The development options tables provided in
Sections 609 through 619 indicate the only types of residential development




R
9.
permitted under each development option and associated development
regulations. The complete list of all permitted uses, including accessory and
temporary uses, is provided in Section 608.C.

Required review: Development review in accordance with Section 507 of
this ordinance, and subdivision review in accordance with chapter 32 of the




D
10.


11.
Phoenix City Code when new lots are created.

Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.




***


I.
T
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS.

1. APPLICABILITY. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL REGULATIONS OF THIS
SECTION SHALL APPLY TO SUBDIVISIONS MEETING ALL OF THE




AF
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

a.




b.


c.
THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT ZONED HP OR HP-L, NOR
DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORICAL PLACES.

THE SUBDIVISION IS ZONED R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1,
C-2, C-3, DTC, OR WU CODE;

THE SUBDIVISION EITHER UTILIZES THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION, OR THE DISTRICT




R d.
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT AN SFI SUBDIVISION MAY BE
DEVELOPED PER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;

THE SUBDIVISION IS EITHER LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN,
OR THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA




D IDENTIFIED AS “APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS OBTAINED
USE PERMIT APPROVAL; AND




e. FOR EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS RECORDED PRIOR TO 2024
ONLY: THE PLAT HAS THE SUBTITLE “A SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED SUBDIVISION”; “A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISION”; “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION”; OR ANOTHER ANALOGOUS SUBTITLE AS
DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.




T
AF
R
D
FIGURE 608.I.1
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AREAS




T
AF
R
D
2. SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND REDEVELOPMENT
AREAS, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

3. SFI DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

a.



T
THE FOLLOWING TABLE PROVIDES MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPED UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION:




AF TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISIONS


(1)


(2)


(3)


(4)
LOT WIDTH
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(MAXIMUM)
20 FEET


NONE


SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT


SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT




R
(5)



(6)


(7)
INDIVIDUAL LOT SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

GARAGE DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS
NONE



THREE FEET


PER SECTION 701.A.3.c




D
(8)




(9)
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER
BUILDING SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)


PERIMETER STREET
LANDSCAPE SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)
PERIMETER STREET, FRONT: 10 FEET
PERIMETER STREET, SIDE: 15 FEET
PERIMETER STREET, REAR: PER SECTION 608.I.4.d
OTHER PERIMETER: 10 FEET


10 FEET, REQUIRED TO BE
COMMUNITY/ASSOCIATION MAINTAINED. MAY BE




TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISIONS
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE REQUIRED BUILDING
SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) PER SECTION 608.I.3.b
(MAXIMUM)

LOT COVERAGE INDIVIDUAL LOTS: NO MAXIMUM
(11)
(MAXIMUM) OTHER PARCELS/TRACTS: 50%

COMMON OPEN SPACE
(12)


(13)



(14)
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS


OTHER APPLICABLE
T
SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT


PER SECTION 608.I.7


SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507 TAB A




AF
REGULATIONS:



b.
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

(1) IN ALL DISTRICTS, THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT
MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE
INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED HEIGHT.




R (2)



(3)
FOR PROPERTIES ZONED R-5, THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED HEIGHT IS 48 FEET.

FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DTC, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
SHALL BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE
CHARACTER AREA.




D (4) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED WU CODE, THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT SHALL BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE
TRANSECT.




(5) IN ALL OTHER DISTRICTS, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT IS 40 FEET WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER, WITH A ONE-FOOT HEIGHT
INCREASE PERMITTED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE-
FOOT SETBACK TO A MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF
48 FEET.

c. ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT ARE APPLICABLE UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS


4.
SECTION.


T
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.

a. INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SHALL PROVIDE A FRONT ENTRY THAT IS EITHER ELEVATED,




AF
b.


c.
DEPRESSED OR INCLUDES A FEATURE SUCH AS A LOW WALL
TO ACCENTUATE THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE. (R*)

REQUIRED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT FRONT ON OR BE
ACCESSED FROM A PERIMETER STREET. (R*)

FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL BE
NO WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK. (R*)




R d.




e.
NO REAR PROPERTY LINE OF ANY LOT IN AN SFI SUBDIVISION
SHALL ABUT EITHER A PERIMETER STREET OR AN
ASSOCIATED PERIMETER STREET LANDSCAPE SETBACK
AREA. (R*)

ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW SHALL




D
5.
NOT EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET WITHOUT HAVING
A MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN AREA. (R*)

LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.




a. TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) FIFTY PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT THE
TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(2) TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES




(3) T
SHALL BE MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES
SHALL BE MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.




6.
AF
b. A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL
BE PROVIDED. (T)

PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI
DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THIS
SECTION.

a. A MINIMUM OF ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE PER
DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT AS
THE UNIT FOR WHICH IT IS PROVIDED.




R b.




c.
COVERED PARKING SETBACKS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE
LARGER THAN THE BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR THE
DWELLING UNIT.

A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST PARKING




D
7.
SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN
ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

VEHICULAR ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.

a. ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE LOCATED
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY. (T)




b. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM A PUBLIC STREET OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY IS PERMITTED. (T)

c. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS
PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM
PAVING STANDARDS FOR THE ALLEY. (T)

d.



T
ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS
PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1, WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:




AF
e.
(1)




(2)
THE SFI SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ACROSS THE
ALLEY FROM EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HP ZONING
DISTRICT. (R)

THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS
APPROVED MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM PAVING
STANDARDS FOR THE ALLEY. (T)

INDIVIDUAL LOTS MAY FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVE, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY
TO ALLOW FOR SUFFICIENT MANEUVERING AND PUBLIC




R
8.
UTILITY ACCESS. (T)

WALLS/FENCES.

a. THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN
REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS IS 40 INCHES.




D b.
(R*)

THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREAS IS 40 INCHES, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF REQUIRED POOL FENCES AND OTHER
NECESSARY VIEW FENCES, AS APPROVED BY PDD. (R*)




9. SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION
705, TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

Section 608.J (Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments)

J. Incentives for Affordable Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency
in the supply of housing for persons of low and moderate income, incentives are
established to foster the provision of such housing.

1. Applicability. All development located within a zoning district subject to the
provisions of Section 608 providing affordable housing as defined in Section
202.

2. Density Bonus.

a. T
One additional unit shall be allowed for every two affordable housing
units; provided, that the overall project density does not exceed ten
percent beyond that which would otherwise be allowed.




J.
3.
AF
b. A density bonus awarded per this section shall apply to the maximum
density for any district and may be in addition to a density bonus
earned per the provisions of Section 608.I.2.

Other Requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing.

OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO ZONING
DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO THE




R FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:

1.


2.
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE LOT




D 3.
OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.

PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL BE
PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:




a. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS
AND CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS
SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME.

b. THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST 40 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF A PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY.




4.
c.



T
NO OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT FEET
TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE FEET.




5.




6.
AF
THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST 15 FEET IN
WIDTH.

AT EACH OCCUPIED OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD
TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE WITH
A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 150 CUBIC FEET.

ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED SURFACES
SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS REQUIRED




R
7.
UNDER SECTION 507.

SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL
MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




D
8. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH EACH
OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND AMENITIES.




9. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A SCREENED
STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,
ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60
SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE FOR EACH OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL
BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE
PARKED IN THE STORAGE YARD.

10. EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL (1) BE AFFIXED




11. T
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR (2) HAVE SKIRTING AROUND
ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND UNDERCARRIAGE.

ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION OR
RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

12.




13.




14.
AF
NOT MORE THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY ONE OFF-
SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DEVELOPED
OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

DEVELOPMENT OF OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES
SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME.




R
15. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
AREA OF THE OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT
DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON OPEN SPACE
LAND. COMMON OPEN SPACE LANDS SHALL BE CLEARLY
DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE CHARACTER OF USE AND
DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:




D a.


b.
AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR BENEFIT OF
AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS-
OF-WAY; NOR




c. VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR

d. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF
THE SITE; NOR

e. GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF OPEN SPACE LAND AREA RESULTING




T
FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS, EITHER BY
PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN
THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC, OR A
COMBINATION THEREOF.

***




AF
SECTION 4: That Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence

District) is amended to read as follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District




B.
***

District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the
RE-35 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in




R Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




D
T
Standards
AF
Minimum lot
(a)
Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options



Subdivision

150' width, 175' depth
(b)
Average Lot

100' width, 125' depth
(c)
Planned Residential


None
Development




R
dimensions (width
and depth)


Dwelling unit density
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards
(Minimum area 35,000
sq. ft.)


1.10


None
1.10


40' front or rear, 20'
1.15; 1.32 with bonus


40' adjacent to a public




D
Building setbacks


Maximum height
40' front, 40' rear, 20'
side

2 stories and 30'
side




25' front, 50' total front
and rear

2 stories and 30'
street(2); this area is to be in
common ownership unless
lots front on the perimeter
public street; 20' adjacent to
property line

25' front


2 stories and 30'




Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, plus an additional 30%, plus an additional
structures are less than 10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or
20' and 1 story in height attached shade attached shade structures.
then a maximum of structures. Total: 40%. Total: 40%.
40% lot coverage is
allowed.

Common areas

Allowed development


Required review
None

Single-family detached


Subdivision to create 4
or more lots
T
None

Single-family attached;
plus (a)

Subdivision with
building setbacks
Minimum 5% of gross area

Single-family attached; plus
(a)

Site plan per Section 507




AF
Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway (1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.


TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS


(A)
(B)




RCATEGORY



(1)


(2)
LOT WIDTH
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)
STANDARD OPTION


150 FEET


175 FEET
NONE.


NONE.
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)




D(3)



(4)
DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(MAXIMUM)
1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS)



1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS);
1.5 WITH BONUS

1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
1.5 WITH BONUS




TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

FRONT: 25 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 40 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS REAR: 40 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) SIDES: 20 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE

GARAGE
(6)



(7)
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
T
SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A
SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS


PER SECTION 701.A.3.B



(8)




(9)




(10)
AF
PERIMETER
BUILDING
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER
STREET
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)
NONE




NONE




2 STORIES AND 30 FEET

25%, EXCEPT IF ALL
PERIMETER STREET: 40 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 20 FEET



20 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE REQUIRED BUILDING
SETBACK.

2 STORIES AND 30 FEET




R
(11)




(12)
LOT COVERAGE
(MAXIMUM)




COMMON OPEN
SPACE
STRUCTURES ARE LESS
THAN 20 FEET AND 1
STORY IN HEIGHT THEN A
MAXIMUM OF 40% LOT
COVERAGE IS ALLOWED.



NONE
40% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT




5% OF GROSS AREA




D
(13)




(14)
(MINIMUM)

STREET
FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT


OTHER
APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
PUBLIC STREET



SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
32, CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507 TAB
A;
BONUS: SECTION 608.H




SECTION 5: That Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.
Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District

***

B.


T
District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used IN
THE R1-18 DISTRICT for each district. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.




AF ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




R
D Illustrations of Development Options




Table 610.A
R1-18 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' depth 90' width, 80' depth None
dimensions (width (Minimum area 18,000
and depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None

T
30' front or rear, 10'
side
20' adjacent to a public
street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street; 15'
adjacent to property line




AF
Building setbacks


Maximum height

Lot coverage




Common areas
25' front, 30' rear, 10'
side

2 stories and 30'

30%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures

Total: 40%

None
25' front, 50' total front
plus rear

2 stories and 30'

30%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures

Total: 40%

None
25' front


2 stories and 30'

30%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade structures

Total: 40%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review


Street standards
Single-family detached


Subdivision to create 4
or more lots

Public street required
Single-family attached;
plus (a)

Subdivision with
building setbacks

Public street
Single-family attached; plus
(a)

Site plan per Section 507


Public street or private
accessway (1)




D (1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.




TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 130 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 120 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)


(3)



(4)
DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(MAXIMUM)
T
2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)



2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
2.5 WITH BONUS

2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
2.5 WITH BONUS



(5)




(6)



(7)




(8)
AF
INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING
FRONT: 25 FEET
REAR: 30 FEET
SIDES: 10 FEET



SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A




NONE.
FRONT: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE


SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS


PER SECTION 701.A.3.B



PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.




R
(9)
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER
STREET
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET



15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE WHERE
LOTS FRONT ON PERIMETER
STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE REQUIRED
BUILDING SETBACK.




D
(10)




(11)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)



LOT COVERAGE
(MAXIMUM)
2 STORIES AND 30 FEET

30%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 40%
2 STORIES AND 30 FEET




40% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT




TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY




(14)
REQUIREMENT


OTHER
APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
T
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
BONUS: SECTION 608.H




AF
SECTION 6: That Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.
Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District




B.
***


District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in




R the R1-10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




D
Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except

T
110' adjacent to freeway or
arterial
None, except
110' adjacent to freeway or
arterial


Dwelling




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks
3.0



Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)
3.5; 4.5 with bonus



Street(2)(front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to
landscape setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




R
Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2)



Minimum interior
building setbacks
None




Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
15' average, 10' minimum

(Does not apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)


Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);




D
Minimum building separation
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
unless 0')


10'
street side: 10'; sides: none
(established by Building Code)


None




Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width




Maximum height
T
For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths,
for lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30'
For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths,
for lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30' are




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas
50% plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50% plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision to
create 4 or more lots
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision to
create 4 or more lots




D
Street standards Public street or private
accessway(1)
Public street or private
accessway(1)




Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to 30
feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.




T
(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-




AF
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the
development standards of Table 611.B.




R
D
Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards
Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot dimensions
(width and depth)
80' width, 94' depth

(Minimum area
10,000 sq. ft.) T
60' width, 65' depth None




AF
Dwelling unit density
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards




Building setbacks
3.50




None




25' front, 25' rear, 10'
3.50




30' front, 25' rear,
10' side




10' front, 35' front
3.68; 4.20 with bonus




20' adjacent to a public
street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street; 15'
adjacent to property line


10' front




R
Maximum height
and 3' side


2 stories and 30'
plus rear


2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories




D
Lot coverage 50%, plus an
additional 10% for an
ADU and/or attached
shade structures.

Total: 60%
50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures.

Total: 60%
50%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade structures.

Total: 60%




Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards
Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Common areas


Allowed development
None


Single-family
detached(3) and
duplex
TNone


Single-family
attached; plus (a)
Minimum 5% of gross area


Multi-family plus (b)




AF
Required review




Street standards
Subdivision to create
4 or more lots


Public street required
Subdivision with
building setbacks


Public street
Site plan per Section 507




Public street or private
accessway(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-




R of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




D
TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 80 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)


(3)



(4)
DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(MAXIMUM)
T
3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)



3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)

FRONT: 25 FEET
3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
4.5 WITH BONUS

3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
4.5 WITH BONUS



(5)




(6)



(7)



(8)
AF
INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)


GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING
REAR: 25 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET


SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS.


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A



NONE.
FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE



FRONT: 18 FEET



PER SECTION 701.A.3.B



PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.




R
(9)
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER
STREET
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET



15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE REQUIRED
BUILDING SETBACK.




D
(10)




(11)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)



LOT COVERAGE
(MAXIMUM)
2 STORIES AND 30 FEET

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%
3 STORIES AND 30 FEET




60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT




TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY




(14)
REQUIREMENT


OTHER
APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS: T
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
BONUS: SECTION 608.H




AF
SECTION 7: That Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.
Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District




B.
***


District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in




R the R1-8 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




D
Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth



Dwelling
T
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


4.0
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


4.5; 5.5 with bonus




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks




Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)




None
Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to landscape
setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story); Property line
(side): 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)


15' average, 10' minimum




R
perimeter streets(2)



Minimum interior
building setbacks
Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
unless 0')
(Does not apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)


Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);
street side: 10'; sides: none
(established by Building Code)




D
Minimum building separation


Minimum garage setback
10'


18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded
garages
None


18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded
garages




Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3




Lot coverage
T
50%, plus additional 10% for an
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50%, plus additional 10% for an




AF
Common areas


Allowed development


Required review
ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None


Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area


Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4




R
Street standards



Landscape standards
or more lots


Public street or private
accessway(1)
or more lots


Public street or private
accessway(1)


Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'




D on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.




(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the
development standards of Table 612.B.




T
AF Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)




Standards



Minimum lot dimensions
(width and depth)
(a)
Subdivision


70' width, 94' depth
(Minimum area 8,000
(b)
Average Lot


50' width, 65' depth
(c)
Planned Residential



None
Development




R
Dwelling
unit density (units/gross
acre)


Perimeter standards
sq. ft.)


4.30




None
4.30




25' front or rear 10' side
4.52; 5.16 with bonus




20' adjacent to a public




D
Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10'
and 3' side
10' front, 35' front plus
rear
street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line


10' front




Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)



(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first




Lot coverage
50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
T
50%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade
150'; 1' in 5' increase to
48' high and 4 stories

50%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade structures




AF
Common areas



Allowed development




Required review
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None



Single-
family detached(3) an
d duplex


Subdivision to create
structures
Total: 60%



None



Single-family attached;
plus (a)



Subdivision with
Total: 60%




Minimum 5% of gross
area


Multi-family plus (b)




Site plan per Section 507




R
Street standards
4 or more lots


Public street required
building setbacks


Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.




D (2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




CATEGORY


LOT WIDTH
T
TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A)
STANDARD OPTION
(B)
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

(1)


(2)



(3)



(4)




(5)
AF
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(MAXIMUM)


INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
70 FEET


94 FEET



4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)



4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)

FRONT: 20 FEET
REAR: 25 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
NONE.


NONE.


4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
5.5 WITH BONUS

4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
5.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE




R
(6)
(MINIMUM)


GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET


SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS.
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE



FRONT: 18 FEET




D
(7)



(8)
PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
PER SECTION 701.A.3.A



NONE.
PER SECTION 701.A.3.B



PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET




TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE WHERE
STREET LOTS FRONT ON PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

(10)




(11)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)



LOT COVERAGE
(MAXIMUM)
T
2 STORIES AND 30 FEET

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%
3 STORIES AND 30 FEET




60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT




(12)



(13)




(14)
AF
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
(MINIMUM)

STREET
FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT


OTHER
APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
NONE.



PUBLIC STREET



SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A
5% OF GROSS AREA



PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
BONUS: SECTION 608.H




R SECTION 8: That Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence

District)), is amended to read as follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.
Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District




D
B.
***


District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R1-6 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced




Minimum lot depth
T
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


Dwelling




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks
5.0



Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)
5.5; 6.5 with bonus



Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to landscape
setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-




R
Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2)
None
story), 15' (2-story)


15' average, 10' minimum(Does
not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets)




D
Minimum interior
building setbacks




Minimum building separation
Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
unless 0')


10'
Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);
street side: 10'; sides: none
(established by Building Code)


None




Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width




Maximum height
T
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30'
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas
50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots




D
Street standards



Landscape standards
Public street or private
accessway(1)
Public street or private
accessway(1)


Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.




(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 613.B.




T
AF Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)



Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Planned Residential
Development




R
Minimum lot
dimensions (width and
depth)


Dwelling unit density
60' width, 94' depth
(Minimum area 6,000
sq. ft.)


5.30
40' width, 60' depth




5.30
None




5.54; 6.34 with bonus




D
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards None 25' front or rear 10'
side
20' adjacent to a public
street(2); this area is to be in
common ownership unless
lots front on the perimeter
public street; 15' adjacent
to property line




Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


Planned Residential
Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front 10' front
and 3' side plus rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30'

T
2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas


Allowed development
50%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None


Single-family
detached(3) and duplex
50%, plus an
additional 10% for an
ADU and/or attached
shade structures
Total: 60%


None


Single-family
attached plus (a)
50%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade structures
Total: 60%



Minimum 5% of gross area


Multi-family plus (b)




R
Required review



Street standards
Subdivision to create 4
or more lots


Public street required
Subdivision with
building setbacks


Public street
Development review per
Section 507


Public street or private
accessway(1)




D (1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




CATEGORY


LOT WIDTH
T
TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A)
STANDARD OPTION
(B)
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

(1)


(2)



(3)



(4)




(5)
AF
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(MAXIMUM)


INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
60 FEET


94 FEET



5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)



5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)

FRONT: 20 FEET
REAR: 25 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
NONE.


NONE.


5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
6.5 WITH BONUS

5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
6.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE




R
(6)
(MINIMUM)


GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET


SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE



FRONT: 18 FEET




D
(7)



(8)
PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
PER SECTION 701.A.3.A



NONE.
PER SECTION 701.A.3.B



PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET




TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
STREET WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

(10)




(11)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)



LOT COVERAGE
(MAXIMUM)
T
2 STORIES AND 30 FEET

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%
3 STORIES AND 30 FEET




60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT




(12)



(13)




(14)
AF
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
(MINIMUM)

STREET
FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT


OTHER
APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
NONE.



PUBLIC STREET



SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A
5% OF GROSS AREA



PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
BONUS: SECTION 608.H




R SECTION 9: That Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily Residence District), is

amended to read as follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multi-Family Residence District.
Section 614. R-2 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District




D
A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family




T
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.




AF
Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.




R
B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-2 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




D
Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth



Dwelling
T
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


5.0
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


6.5; 12 with bonus




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks
Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)
Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to landscape
setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




R
Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2)


Minimum interior
building setbacks
None




Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
15' average, 10' minimum (Does
not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets)


Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);
street side: 10'; sides: none




D
Minimum building separation
unless 0')


10'
(established by Building Code)


None




Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width




Maximum height
T
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30'
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas
50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots




D
Street standards



Landscape standards
Public street or private
accessway(1)
Public street or private
accessway(1)


Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.




(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 614.B.




T
AF Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)



(a) (b)
(c)
(d)




R Standards




Minimum lot
dimensions (width
and depth)
Subdivision



60' width, 94'
depth (Minimum
area 6,000 sq. ft.)
Average Lot




40' width, 60'
depth
Planned
Residential
Development



None
Single-Family
Infill(4)



Development site:
none. Individual
dwelling lot: 20'.




D
Dwelling unit
density
(units/gross acre)
10.0 10.0
10.50; 12.00 with
bonus
10.50; 12.00 with
bonus




Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development




Perimeter
None
T
25' front or rear
20' adjacent to a
public street(2);
this area is to be
in common
ownership unless
10' for units
fronting street
rights-of-way; 15'
for units siding
street rights-of-
way. This area is




AF
standards




Building setbacks




Maximum height
20' front, 25' rear,
10' and 3' side




2 stories and 30'
10' side




10' front, 35' front
plus rear




2 stories and 30'
lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15'
adjacent to
property line



10' front



2 stories and 30'
for first 150'; 1' in
to be in common
ownership or
management. 10'
adjacent to
property line


Individual unit lot:
none


3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 1'
increase to 48'




R
Lot coverage
50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories



50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
height, 4-story
maximum(5)


100% for each
individual lot. 50%
for other parcels
or tracts with




D
Common areas
structures
Total: 60%



None
structures
Total: 60%



None
structures
Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of
gross area
accessory
structures



Minimum 5% of
gross area




Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development




Allowed
development
Single-family
detached(3) and
duplex
T
Single-family
attached plus (a)
Multi-family plus
(b)
Single-family
attached and
single-family
detached (per the
provisions of
Section 608.F.6




AF
Required review




Street standards
Subdivision to
create 4 or more
lots




Public street
required
Subdivision with
building setbacks




Public street
Development
review per
Section 507




Public street or
private
accessway(1)
only)


Development
review per
Section 507


Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit lot:




R private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.




D(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.




(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




T
AF ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




R
D
TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)


(3)



(4)
DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(MAXIMUM)
T
10.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)



10.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
10.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
12.0 WITH BONUS


10.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
12.0 WITH BONUS




(5)




(6)



(7)
AF
INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)


GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS
FRONT: 20 FEET
REAR: 25 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET


SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS.


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A
FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE



18 FEET FRONT OR STREET
SIDE


PER SECTION 701.A.3.B




R
(8)
DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING SETBACK
(MINIMUM)


PERIMETER STREET
LANDSCAPE
NONE
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
FEET


15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A




D
(9)
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN




(11)
LOT COVERAGE
T
50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**



60% TOTAL FOR




(12)



(13)
AF
(MAXIMUM)



COMMON OPEN
SPACE
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%


NONE



PUBLIC STREET



SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DEVELOPMENT




5% OF GROSS AREA


PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507




R(14)
OTHER APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
703.B
TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY




D
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.



SECTION 10: That Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 615. R-3 Multi-Family Residence District.
Section 615. R-3 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District



A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,




T
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual




AF
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid




R
B.
any adverse effect on property values.


District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-3 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,




D FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth



Dwelling
T
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


5.0
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


6.5; 12 with bonus




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks
Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)
Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to landscape
setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




R
Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2)


Minimum interior
building setbacks
None




Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
15' average, 10' minimum (Does
not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets)


Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);
street side: 10'; sides: none




D
Minimum building separation
unless 0')


10'
(established by Building Code)


None




Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width




Maximum height
T
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30'
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas
50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots




D
Street standards



Landscape standards
Public street or private
accessway(1)
Public street or private
accessway(1)


Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.




(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 615.B.




T
AF
Standards
Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(a)
Subdivision
(b)
Average Lot
(c)
Planned
Residential
(d)
Single-Family
Infill(4)




R
Minimum lot
dimensions (width
and depth)

Dwelling unit
density
60' width, 94'
depth (Minimum
area 6,000 sq. ft.)


14.5
40' width, 60'
depth



14.5
Development


None



15.23; 17.40 with
bonus
Development site:
none. Individual
dwelling lot: 20'.


15.23; 17.40 with
bonus




D
(units/gross acre)




Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this


Perimeter
standards
None
T
20' front, 15' rear,
10' side
area is to be in
common
ownership unless
lots front on the
perimeter public
street(2); 15'
rights-of-way; 15'
for units siding
street rights-of-
way. This area is
to be in common
ownership or
management. 10'




AF
Building setbacks




Maximum height
25' front, 15' rear,
10' and 3' side




2 stories and 30'(5)




50%, plus an
10' front, 30' front
plus rear




2 stories and 30'(5)




50%, plus an
adjacent to
property line


10' front


2 stories and 30'
for first 150'; 1' in
5' increase to 48'
height, 4-story
maximum(5)

50%, plus an
adjacent to
property line

Individual unit lot:
none

3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 1'
increase to 48'
height, 4-story
maximum(5)

100% for each




R
Lot coverage




Common areas
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%

Minimum 5% of
gross area
individual lot. 50%
for other parcels
or tracts with
accessory
structures

Minimum 5% of
gross area




D
Allowed
development
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
attached and
single-family
detached (per the
provisions of
Section 608.F.6
only)




Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks




Street standards
lots




Public street
T
Public street
Section 507




Public street or
private
Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
private
accessway.




AF required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.




R(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




D
T
AF ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




R TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS




D
CATEGORY



(1)


(2)
LOT WIDTH
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)
(A)
STANDARD OPTION


60 FEET


94 FEET
(B)
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL



NONE


NONE
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)




TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
15.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 14.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
17.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 15.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 14.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)




(5)
(MAXIMUM)


INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)
T
FRONT: 25 FEET
REAR: 15 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET
17.5 WITH BONUS


FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE




(6)



(7)



(8)
AF
GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS.


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A



NONE
FRONT: 18 FEET



PER SECTION 701.A.3.B


PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
FEET




R
(9)
PERIMETER STREET
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
NONE
15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM




D
(10)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)
2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**




TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%


(12)



(13)
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT
NONE



PUBLIC STREET
T 5% OF GROSS AREA


PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY




(14)

AF
OTHER APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
703.B
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




R SECTION 11: That Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 616. R-3A Multi-Family Residence District.




D
Section 616. R-3A Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District




A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family




T
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.




AF
Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.




R
B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




D
Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth



Dwelling
T
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


5.0
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


6.5; 12 with bonus




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks
Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)
Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to landscape
setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




R
Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2)


Minimum interior
building setbacks
None




Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
15' average, 10' minimum (Does
not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets)


Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);
street side: 10'; sides: none




D
Minimum building separation
unless 0')


10'
(established by Building Code)


None




Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width




Maximum height
T
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30'
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas
50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots




D
Street standards



Landscape standards
Public street or private
accessway(1)
Public street or private
accessway(1)


Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.




(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 616.B.




T
AF
Standards
Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(a)
Subdivision
(b)
Average Lot
(c)
Planned
Residential
(d)
Single-Family
Infill(4)




R
Minimum lot
dimensions (width
and depth)

Dwelling unit
density
60' width, 94'
depth (Minimum
area 6,000 sq. ft.)


40' width, 60'
depth



Development


None



23.1; 26.4 with
bonus
Development site:
none. Individual
dwelling lot: 20'.


23.1; 26.4 with
bonus




D
(units/gross acre)




Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this


Perimeter
standards
None
T
20' front, 15' rear,
10' side
area is to be in
common
ownership unless
lots front on the
perimeter public
street(2); 15'
rights-of-way; 15'
for units siding
street rights-of-
way. This area is
to be in common
ownership or
management. 10'




AF
Building setbacks




Maximum height
25' front, 15' rear,
10' and 3' side




3 stories or 40'(5)




50%, plus an
10' front, 30' front
plus rear




3 stories or 40'(5)




50%, plus an
adjacent to
property line


10' front


3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48'
height, 4-story
maximum(5)

50%, plus an
adjacent to
property line

Individual unit lot:
none

3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 1'
increase to 48'
height, 4-story
maximum(5)

100% for each




R
Lot coverage




Common areas
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%

Minimum 5% of
gross area
individual lot. 50%
for other parcels
or tracts with
accessory
structures

Minimum 5% of
gross area




D
Allowed
development
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
attached and
single-family
detached (per the
provisions of
Section 608.F.6
only)




Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks




Street standards
lots




Public street
T
Public street
Section 507




Public street or
private
Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
private
accessway.




AF required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.




R(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




D
T
AF ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




R TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS




D
CATEGORY



(1)


(2)
LOT WIDTH
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)
(A)
STANDARD OPTION


60 FEET


94 FEET
(B)
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL



NONE


NONE
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)




TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
23.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 22.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
26.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 23.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 22.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)




(5)
(MAXIMUM)


INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)
T
FRONT: 25 FEET
REAR: 15 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET
26.5 WITH BONUS


FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE




(6)



(7)



(8)
AF
GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A



NONE
FRONT: 18 FEET



PER SECTION 701.A.3.B


PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
FEET




R
(9)
PERIMETER STREET
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
NONE
15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM




D
(10)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)
2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**




TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%


(12)



(13)
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT
NONE



PUBLIC STREET
T 5% OF GROSS AREA


PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY




(14)

AF
OTHER APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
703.B
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




R SECTION 12: That Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 617. R-4 Multi-Family Residence District.




D
Section 617. R-4 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District




A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family




T
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.




AF
Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.




R
B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-4 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




D
Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth



Dwelling
T
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


5.0
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


6.5; 12 with bonus




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks
Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)
Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to landscape
setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




R
Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2)


Minimum interior
building setbacks
None




Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
15' average, 10' minimum (Does
not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets)


Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);
street side: 10'; sides: none




D
Minimum building separation
unless 0')


10'
(established by Building Code)


None




Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width




Maximum height
T
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30'
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas
50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots




D
Street standards



Landscape standards
Public street or private
accessway(1)
Public street or private
accessway(1)


Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.




(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 617.B.




T
AF
Standards
Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(a)
Subdivision
(b)
Average Lot
(c)
Planned
Residential
(d)
Single-Family
Infill(4)




R
Minimum lot
dimensions (width
and depth)

Dwelling unit
density
60' width, 94'
depth (Minimum
area 6,000 sq. ft.)


29.0
40' width, 60'
depth



29.0
Development


None



30.45; 34.80 with
bonus
Development site:
none. Individual
dwelling lot: 20'.


30.45; 34.80 with
bonus




D
(units/gross acre)




Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this


Perimeter
standards
None
T
20' front, 15' rear,
10' side
area is to be in
common
ownership unless
lots front on the
perimeter public
street(2); 15'
rights-of-way; 15'
for units siding
street rights-of-
way. This area is
to be in common
ownership or
management. 10'




AF
Building setbacks




Maximum height
20' front, 15' rear,
10' and 3' side




3 stories or 40'(5)




50%, plus an
10' front, 30' front
plus rear




3 stories or 40'(5)




50%, plus an
adjacent to
property line


10' front


3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48'
height, 4-story
maximum(5)

50%, plus an
adjacent to
property line

Individual unit lot:
none

3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 1'
increase to 48'
height, 4-story
maximum(5)

100% for each




R
Lot coverage




Common areas
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%


None
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
Total: 60%

Minimum 5% of
gross area
individual lot. 50%
for other parcels
or tracts with
accessory
structures

Minimum 5% of
gross area




D
Allowed
development
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
detached(3),
single-family
attached and
multi-family
Single-family
attached and
single-family
detached (per the
provisions of
Section 608.F.6
only)




Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks




Street standards
lots




Public street
T
Public street
Section 507




Public street or
private
Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
private
accessway.




AF required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.




R(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




D
T
AF ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




R TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS




D
CATEGORY



(1)


(2)
LOT WIDTH
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)
(A)
STANDARD OPTION


60 FEET


94 FEET
(B)
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL



NONE


NONE
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)




TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
30.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 29.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
35.0 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 30.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 29.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)




(5)
(MAXIMUM)


INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)
T
FRONT: 20 FEET
REAR: 15 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET
35.0 WITH BONUS


FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE




(6)



(7)



(8)
AF
GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS.


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A



NONE
FRONT: 18 FEET



PER SECTION 701.A.3.B


PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
FEET




R
(9)
PERIMETER STREET
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
NONE
15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM




D
(10)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)
3 STORIES AND 40 FEET**
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**




TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%


(12)



(13)
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT
NONE



PUBLIC STREET
T 5% OF GROSS AREA


PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY




(14)

AF
OTHER APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
703.B
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




R SECTION 13: That Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District.




D
Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District—Restricted Commercial




A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family




T
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.




AF
Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.




R
B. District Regulations—Residential Uses. The following tables establishES
standards to be used in the R-5 district. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option
must meet Section 608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608,
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL




D DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth



Dwelling
T
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


5.0
None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial


6.5; 12 with bonus




AF
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb
acks
Front: 15';

Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)
Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
(in addition to landscape
setback);

Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




R
Common
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2)


Minimum interior
building setbacks
None




Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined
front and rear: 35', street side:
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum,
15' average, 10' minimum (Does
not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets)


Front: 10'; rear: none
(established by Building Code);
street side: 10'; sides: none




D
Minimum building separation
unless 0')


10'
(established by Building Code)


None




Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width




Maximum height
T
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30'
For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum


2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are




AF
Lot coverage




Common areas
50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


None
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade
structures

Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of gross area




R
Allowed development


Required review
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots
Single-family detached(3)


Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots




D
Street standards



Landscape standards
Public street or private
accessway(1)
Public street or private
accessway(1)


Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.




(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 618.B.




T
AF
Standards
Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(a)
Subdivision
(b)
Average Lot
(c)
Planned
Residential
(d)
Single-Family
Infill(4)




R
Minimum lot
dimensions (width
and depth)

Dwelling unit
density
60' width, 94'
depth (Minimum
area 6,000 sq. ft.)


43.5
40' width, 60'
depth



43.5
Development


None



45.68;52.20 with
bonus
Development site:
none. Individual
dwelling lot: 20'.


45.68;52.20 with
bonus




D
(units/gross acre)




Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this


Perimeter
standards
None
T
20' front, 15' rear,
10' side
area is to be in
common
ownership unless
lots front on the
perimeter public
street(2); 15'
rights-of-way; 15'
for units siding
street rights-of-
way. This area is
to be in common
ownership or
management. 10'




AF
Building setbacks


Maximum height




Lot coverage
20' front, 15' rear,
10' and 3' side

4 stories or 48'(5)

50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
10' front, 30' front
plus rear

4 stories or 48'(5)

50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
adjacent to
property line


10' front


4 stories or 48'(5)

50%, plus an
additional 10% for
an ADU and/or
attached shade
structures
adjacent to
property line

Individual unit lot:
none

4 stories or 48'(5)

100% for each
individual lot. 50%
for other parcels
or tracts with
accessory




R
Common areas




Allowed
Total: 60%


None




Single-family
detached, single-
Total: 60%


None




Single-family
detached, single-
Total: 60%

Minimum 5% of
gross area



Single-family
detached, single-
structures

Minimum 5% of
gross area

Single-family
attached and
single-family




D
development




Required review
family attached
and multi-family



Subdivision to
create 4 or more
lots
family attached
and multi-family




Subdivision with
building setbacks
family attached
and multi-family



Development
review per
Section 507
detached (per the
provisions of
Section 608.F.6
only)

Development
review per
Section 507




Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Development site:
public street,


Street standards
Public street
required
T
Public street
Public street or
private
accessway(1)
public alley, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)




AF
(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which




R height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




D
T
AF ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




R TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS




D
CATEGORY



(1)


(2)
LOT WIDTH
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(MINIMUM)
(A)
STANDARD OPTION


60 FEET


94 FEET
(B)
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL



NONE


NONE
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)




TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
45.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 43.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
52.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 45.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 43.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)




(5)
(MAXIMUM)


INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)
T
FRONT: 20 FEET
REAR: 15 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
AND 3 FEET
52.5 WITH BONUS


FRONT: 10 FEET
REAR: NONE
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE




(6)



(7)



(8)
AF
GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT
ENTRY SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PROJECTIONS

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
BUILDING SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
SETBACKS


PER SECTION 701.A.3.A



NONE
FRONT: 18 FEET



PER SECTION 701.A.3.B


PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
FEET




R
(9)




(10)
PERIMETER STREET
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)


BUILDING HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)
NONE




4 STORIES AND 48 FEET**
15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.


4 STORIES AND 48 FEET**




D
(11)




(12)
LOT COVERAGE
(MAXIMUM)



COMMON OPEN
SPACE
(MINIMUM)
50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%


NONE
60% TOTAL FOR
DEVELOPMENT




5% OF GROSS AREA




TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;


(14)
OTHER APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
CITY CODE;




T
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
507 TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
703.B
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
TAB A;
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I




AF
** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.


***



SECTION 14: That Chapter 6, Section 619 (Residential R-4A District—

Multifamily Residence—General), is amended to read as follows:




R
Section 619. R-4A Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General.
Section 619. Residential R-4A District—Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence—
General

***




D
A. Permitted Uses. Primary uses and accessory uses are permitted as indicated in
the Residential Districts Land Use Matrix, Section 608.D, plus the following:

1.

2.
Hospice, subject to a use permit.

Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.




b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

3. Single-family infill developments, per the provisions of Section 608.F.6 and
Table 617.B, R-4 Development Options, column D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the
following yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***

8.




9.
T
Single-family infill development must comply with all regulations applicable to
SFI development in the R-4 district except for density, which shall be
permitted per Section 619.B.1.

Off-site manufactured home developments, upon obtaining use permit




AFapproval, shall comply with the R-4 standards for planned residential
developments (Table 617.B, column C) except for density, which shall be
permitted per Section 619.B.1.

***


SECTION 15: That Chapter 6, Section 622 (Commercial C-1 District—

Neighborhood Retail) is amended to read as follows:

Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail




R
Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail.

A. Purpose. The C-1, Commercial Neighborhood Retail District, is a district of light
neighborhood type retail and customer service uses designed to be compatible
with each other and nearby residential districts.




D
B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Section, the
following restrictions shall apply to this district:

1. All commercial uses are restricted to closed buildingS except parking lots
and liquid fuel pump services.




***

10. The sale of used merchandise in connection with the following permitted
uses when such used merchandise uses a floorspace having a total area of
no more than five (5) percent of the gross floor area of the establishment:

***

g. Audio and video rentals and retail sales.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1.
T
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

2.


3.

4.

5.

6.
AF
ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE R-5 DISTRICT.

ADULT DAY CARE HOME AND CENTER

BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT




R
D.
7. NURSING HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5 DISTRICT and R-




D 4A; and in addition the following:




2. RESERVED. Adult Day Care Home and Center
***




***




19. RESERVED. Boarding House, subject to a use permit

***

38. RESERVED. Community Residence Center, subject to a use permit

***

76. RESERVED. Group Home, subject to a use permit




120.
T ***

RESERVED. Nursing Home, subject to a use permit

***

E.




AF
Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:




R d.
***

Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL




D 2.
COMPLY WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.J, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.




b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density


d.
T
of the equivalent zoning district.

Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2.



AFSINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

***


SECTION 16: That Chapter 6, Section 623 (Commercial C-2 District —




R
Intermediate Commercial), is amended to read as follows:

Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial
Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-2, Commercial Intermediate District, is a district of commercial
uses of medium intensity designed to be compatible with each other and to provide




D
B.
for a wide range of types of commercial activity within the district.

Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.

1. Except as otherwise provided, all permitted uses and storaging of materials
or supplies shall be conducted entirely within a closed building.




2. The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted
uses set forth in Section 623.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained
and subject to the following standards for the outdoor display area:

a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere
along the building except as noted in Section 623.CB.2.b;

***




C.
9.



T
With the exception of those instances listed above in 623.CB.7. and CB.8.,
no other types of vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or
displayed for sale on-site except by a registered vehicle retail sales
dealership and upon obtaining a special permit pursuant to Section 647.

PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1.




2.


3.
AF
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-1 DISTRICT.

BOARDING HOUSE




R 4.

5.

6.
COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER

GROUP HOME

NURSING HOME




D
D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5, R-4A, and C-1
districts; and in addition the following:




50.
***

RESERVED. Community Residence Center.




***

126. RESERVED. Nursing Home.

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses




T
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3




AFDISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:




d.
***

Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.J, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




R 2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.




D b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.




c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2.

T
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.




AF ***


SECTION 17: That Chapter 6, Section 624 (Commercial C-3 District —General

Commercial), is amended to read as follows:

Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial
Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-3 Commercial General District, is a district designed to provide for
the intensive commercial uses necessary to the proper development of the




R
B.
community.

Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.




D 1.




2.
Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from adjacent
residential districts. No noise, odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it
exceeds the general level of noise, odor or vibration emitted by uses outside
the site. Such comparison shall be made at the boundary of the site.

The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted
uses set forth in Section 624.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained
and subject to the following standards for the outdoor display area:




a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere
along the building except as noted in Section 624.CB.2.b;

***

4. With the exception of those instances listed above in 624.CB.3., no other
types of vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or displayed
for sale on-site except by a registered vehicle retail sales dealership.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1.
T
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.




D.
2.



AFALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT.

Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1 and THE C-2
districts; and in addition the following, including the storage of all raw materials and
finished products in connection herewith:

***




R
E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are




D herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:

***




d. Neither the Zoning Administrator nor the Board of Adjustment shall
have jurisdiction to vary the provisions of Section 624.E.1.OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION 608.J,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

e. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.

2.



T
Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.




AF
b.




c.
The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.




R
2.
d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED




D ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

***




SECTION 18: That Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise

and High Density District)), is amended to strike everything, and replace with the

following text:

Section 632. Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District.
SECTION 632. MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ESTABLISH
ZONING REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 9-




T
462.13, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS FOLLOWS:

1. ENTITLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MIDDLE HOUSING OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO HAVE UP TO FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS PER
LOT.




B.
2.




AFPROVIDE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR MIDDLE
HOUSING.

APPLICABILITY.

1.




2.
THE MH OVERLAY MAY BE COMBINED WITH ANY ZONING DISTRICT
WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 632.C.

IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH OVERLAY CONFLICT WITH OTHER
ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, THE MH




R
C.
OVERLAY PROVISIONS SHALL PREVAIL, UNLESS OTHERWISE
STATED IN THIS SECTION.

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL BE
APPLIED TO THE FOLLOWING:




D 1.


2.
A PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN REZONED WITH THE MH OVERLAY
DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506; OR

LOTS IN A SUBDIVISION HAVING A PLAT RECORDED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2026, WHICH MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL
CRITERIA:




a. THE SUBDIVISION IS CONTIGUOUS AND A MINIMUM 10 GROSS
ACRES IN SIZE.

b. THE SUBDIVISION HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF A PRIOR
SUBDIVISION WHICH HAS APPLIED THE MIDDLE HOUSING
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9-462.13, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES.

c. THE SUBDIVISION HAS BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-


d.
1, C-2, OR C-3.



T
FOR C-1, C-2, AND C-3 PROPERTIES ONLY: THE SUBDIVISION
IS PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION AS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I.




AF
e.




f.
THE NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED FOR APPLICATION OF THE
MH OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. FOR
SUBDIVISIONS OF FEWER THAN FIVE LOTS, ONE LOT SHALL
BE PERMITTED TO HAVE THE MH OVERLAY.

THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF: PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT; PHOENIX DEER VALLEY AIRPORT; AND
SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT; EACH OF WHICH IS A FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION COMMERCIALLY LICENSED




R
g.
AIRPORT OR A GENERAL AVIATION OR PUBLIC AIRPORT AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8486, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.

THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF A MILITARY AIRPORT OR ANCILLARY MILITARY
FACILITY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8461, ARIZONA REVISED




D
h.

I.
STATUTES.

THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ON TRIBAL LAND.

THE SUBDIVISION OWNER HAS REQUESTED THE CITY TO
ASSIGN THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION
THROUGH THE OPT-IN PROCEDURES PROVIDED IN THIS
SECTION.




D. OPT-IN PROCEDURE. PRIOR TO UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT, SUBDIVISIONS ELIGIBLE PER SECTION 632.C.2 MUST
REQUEST THAT THE CITY APPLY THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE LOTS
ON WHICH MIDDLE HOUSING SHALL BE PERMITTED, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE SUBDIVISION OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC
AN OPT-IN FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

2.




3.
T
CONCURRENT WITH THE OPT-IN FORM, THE SUBDIVISION OWNER
SHALL SUBMIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOTS ON WHICH THE
MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL BE APPLIED.

CITY STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE OPT-IN FORM AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. WHEN THE REQUEST IS CONFIRMED TO BE




E.
4.
AF
ELIGIBLE, STAFF SHALL PROCESS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO APPLY THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE ELIGIBLE SUBDIVISION LOTS.

ONCE THE ZONING MAP CHANGE IS COMPLETED, THE LOTS SHALL
BE OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT UNTIL SUCH
TIME THAT THEY MAY BE REZONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
506.

MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING
MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLY ONLY WHEN THE MH




R DISTRICT IS COMBINED WITH THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, RE-35, R1-18, R1-10,
R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, OR C-3 ZONING
DISTRICTS. FOR ALL OTHER PROPERTIES, THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE BASE DISTRICT APPLY.

1. PERMITTED USES.




D a.


b.
ALL USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONING
DISTRICTS, PLUS

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.




2. DENSITY. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS
(PDU) PROVIDED ON A LOT ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT
SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING,
OR FOUR PDUS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

a. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SUBDIVIDED LOTS PER ACRE IS
THE SAME AS ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING AND IS NOT
MODIFIED BY THIS SECTION.

b. FOR THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION,




3. T
DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.H.1.

SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM
HEIGHT(S) SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
UNIT ON THE SAME PROPERTY, INCLUDING THOSE FOR PERMITTED


4.




5.
AF
PROJECTIONS.

LOT COVERAGE. LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR THE
BASE DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

a. LOTS WITH BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-35, RE-24, OR R1-14.
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE
INCREASED TO 50% WHEN ALL STRUCTURES ON THE LOT ARE
ONE-STORY AND A MAXIMUM 20 FEET IN HEIGHT.

PARKING AND MANEUVERING.




R a.




b.
ON LOTS HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY DWELLING
UNIT, A MINIMUM OF TWO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE
PROVIDED ONSITE.

ON LOTS HAVING TWO OR MORE PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS,




D c.
A MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED
ONSITE PER PDU.

MANEUVERING WITHIN A PUBLIC ALLEY SHALL BE ALLOWED
WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) THE ALLEY IS A MINIMUM 16 FEET WIDE FOR THE
LENGTH OF THE BLOCK;




(2) THE ALLEY IS PAVED TO THE TWO NEAREST EXISTING
CROSS STREETS, TO THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY
THE CITY FOR A LOCAL STREET; AND

(3) A MINIMUM OF 24 FEET MANEUVERING AREA IS
PROVIDED THAT IS A COMBINATION OF THE ALLEY
PAVING AND ONSITE PAVING, OR AS OTHERWISE
APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL APPEAL.

6. DESIGN REVIEW.

a.
T
HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP). DESIGN REVIEW FOR HP-
ZONED OR HP-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SHALL BE AS
REQUIRED PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8, WITH NO
MODIFICATIONS BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.




AF b. ALL LOTS NOT ZONED HP OR DESIGNATED HP, REGARDLESS
OF LOT WIDTH, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 507 TAB A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW.

***


SECTION 19: That Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections), is amended to read

as follows:




R
Section 701. Bulk Regulations

A. Lots.
***


***




D 3. Projections.




a. STANDARD OPTION. The following provisions apply to development
in Sections 604 through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision
option of Sections 609 through 618 IN THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
AND R-4A DISTRICTS, AND IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8,
R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN
DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD
DEVELOPMENT OPTION:

(1) Open projections.

(a)



T
In any district, an awning, open porch, open carport, or
open balcony may project into any required front yard
not more than five feet.
FRONT YARD. AN ATTACHED CARPORT, AWNING,
PORCH/FRONT ENTRY, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP




AF (b)
TO FIVE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.

An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony
may project into any side yard other than the side yard
on the street side of a corner lot, if it does not come
nearest to the side lot line than three feet.
SIDE YARDS. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO ANY INTERIOR (NOT STREET) SIDE
YARD, PROVIDED THAT IT IS NO CLOSER THAN
THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.




R (i) For any lot wherein a ten-foot or greater side
yard is required, no such projection shall be
within an area ten feet wide and ten feet high,
measured from finished grade, lying within that
side yard.




D (ii) No more than one such clear area, as stipulated
in i. above, need be maintained on a lot.




(c) An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony
may project into a rear yard, provided it does not come
nearer to a common rear lot line than three feet. Where
a rear alley exists this projection may extend to the rear
lot line or to within eight or ten feet of what would be the
centerline of a full sixteen- or twenty-foot-wide alley
where only a one-half or partial alley exists.
REAR YARD. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO THE REAR YARD, PROVIDED THAT




T
IT IS NO CLOSER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE.

(i) WHERE A FULLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS,
THIS PROJECTION MAY EXTEND TO THE
PROPERTY LINE; OR WHERE ONLY A




AF (d)
PARTIALLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS, TO
WITHIN EIGHT OR TEN FEET OF WHAT
WOULD BE THE CENTERLINE OF A FULL 16-
OR 20-FOOT-WIDE ALLEY.

Open fire balconies, and OPEN fire escape stairs
PROVIDED FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY may
project not more than five feet over INTO any required
yard provided they come no closer than two feet from a
property line.




R (e)




(f)
Awnings, cornices, CANTILEVERED roof overhangs,
and eaves may project more than three feet over INTO
any required yard providing they come no closer than
two feet from a property line.

Sills, leaders, belt courses, and similar ornamental




D
(2)
(g)
features may project not more than six inches over
INTO any required yard.

An entrance awning may project into any required yard
in an R-5 or less restricted district.

Closed Projections.




(a) A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule, ten feet or
less in width, may project not more than three feet into
any REQUIRED front or rear yard.

(b) A chimney may project not more than three feet into any
required yard, if it THE CHIMNEY is not more than six
feet long measured in a direction parallel to the nearest
property line AND so long as it is not closer than two
feet from a property line.

(c)




(d)
T
The main building in a residence district may project five
feet into the required front yard for no more than one-
half of the maximum width of the structure.

The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear or side yard, subject




AF to the following:

(i)


(ii)


(iii)
The projection is no closer to a side property line
than five feet;

The projection is no closer to a rear property line
than three feet; and

The projection does not exceed 15 feet in height,
unless greater height is permitted by obtaining a
use permit per Section 307.




R
b. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND PLANNED
AREA DEVELOPMENTS. The following provisionS applies APPLY
to development in the average lot and RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8,
R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN
DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE Planned Residential




D Development options of Sections 609 through 618, AND
SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED AS PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENTS PER SECTION 635:

(1) There shall be no projections into the required front or rear
yard or required perimeter setbacks except:




(a) A roof overhang may project not more than three feet
into either of these yard AREAS; and

(b) An attached awning, open porch, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY or other similar shade
structure may project not more than ten feet into the
required rear yard PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACK
provided that the structure shall neither cover more than
two hundred 200 square feet nor come closer than three
feet to a side or rear property line.

(c)

T
A CLOSED PROJECTION (WHICH MAY INCLUDE AN
ATTACHED ADU) MAY PROJECT INTO THE
REQUIRED PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:




AF (I)


(II)


(III)
THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.




R
c.
(2) A roof overhang may project no more than three feet into a
required street side yard setback.

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS. The following
provisions apply to single-family attached residential development:
SFI SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH




D SECTION 608.I:

(1) Open Projections.




(a) An awning, open porch, or open balcony may project
into any required setback not more than five feet.
AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP
TO FIVE FEET INTO ANY REQUIRED YARD THAT IS
NOT A REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

(b) Where an FULLY-DEDICATED alley exists, an
ATTACHED awning, open porch, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, or open balcony may extend to the


(2)
T
property line.

Closed Projections. A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule,
ten feet in width or less, may project not more than three feet
into any required building setback YARD THAT IS NOT A
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.




AF ***


SECTION 20: That Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), is

amended to read as follows:

Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading.


B.
***

Site and Parking Space Design Standards.




R 2.
***

Space and aisle dimensions. Dimensions for maneuvering aisles and for
different types of parking spaces shall be as follows:




D b. Surface parking:
***




***




(5) The combined depth of the parking space and the aisle width
shall equal sixty-two (62) feet for a double loaded aisle and
forty-three (43) feet for a single loaded aisle.
FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HAVING NO MORE THAN
FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS, THE MINIMUM DRIVE
AISLE WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED TO 10 FEET FOR TWO-
WAY TRAFFIC WHERE IT DOES NOT ALSO FUNCTION AS
REQUIRED MANEUVERING FOR AN ADJACENT PARKING
SPACE, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD TRAFFIC ENGINEER.




C.
T ***

Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.




AF Type of Land Use

***




Dwelling Unit, Multi-family
Parking Requirements

***

1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
A minimum of 50% Of the required parking
spaces, A MINIMUM OF 0.25 SPACES PER
DWELLING UNIT must be provided as
unreserved spaces WHEN THE LOT HAS FIVE
OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.




R
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Attached
Per Section 608.F.6, if developing under the
single-family infill development option per
Sections 614 through 618.
2 spaces per PRIMARY DWELLING unit if not
developing under the SFI option. The required
spaces for each dwelling unit must be provided on




D
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Detached

***
the same lot. An additional 0.25 unreserved
spaceS per dwelling unit must be provided
elsewhere within the development for visitor
parking.

2 spaces per 1 PRIMARY dwelling unit

***




***

F. Special Parking Standards.

1. Residential DISTRICTS lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family residential uses may
SHALL not be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single-family residential uses




T
may be located in the required front yard. However, all parking and
maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall not exceed 50
percent of the area of the required front yard, except that a driveway
shall not be required to be less than 18 feet in width unless otherwise
stipulated by Historic Preservation.
NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD




AFc.
SHALL BE USED FOR DRIVEWAYS, MANEUVERING AREAS, AND
NON-REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. HP-ZONED LOTS MAY BE
STIPULATED TO MAXIMUM PAVING THAT IS LESS THAN 50
PERCENT AS A PART OF THE HP APPROVAL PROCESS SET
FORTH IN CHAPTER 8.

Buses shall not be parked in the front yard of any residential district.
A bus is any commercially licensed motor vehicle designed for
carrying more than fifteen (15) 15 passengers and used for the
transportation of persons as well as any motor vehicle, other than a
taxicab, designed for the transportation of persons for compensation.




R d. Mobile homes shall not be parked in any residential district except as
provided in Section 647.A.2.1 608.J.

***




D SECTION 21: That Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In

Multiple-Family Development), is amended to read as follows:

Section 703. Landscaping, Fences, and Walls
B. Landscaping and Open Areas SPACE in Multiple-Family Development.




1. Purpose. Multiple-family dwellings UNITS can play a desired role by
providing desired forms of housing in appropriately zoned locations.
However, because the density of dwellings is greater than alternate forms of
housing, there is a relatively greater need to ensure an appropriate
residential setting, including both landscape amenities and adequate
outdoor open areas. Although it is recognized that many multiple-family
projects will wish to provide these in greater amounts, this section
establishes minimum standards for these features. These standards also
recognize both limitations in water availability as well as legitimate needs to
use landscaping for shade, cooling, and visual relief. To these purposes,




T
these standards distinguish between landscaped areas oriented to public
street and the exterior of projects from that more internally oriented and for
the use of residents. They provide for landscaping at the perimeter and in
front yards to include waterless features and drought resistant plant
materials. Higher water use landscaping is to be restricted to interior areas
devoted to resident use.

2.



AFLandscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time
of initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with five or more dwelling units.
PROPERTIES WITH FOUR OR FEWER DWELLING UNITS SHOULD
REFER TO SECTION 507 TAB A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN
REVIEW.

***




R SECTION 22: That Chapter 7, Section 710 (Hillside Development), is amended

to read as follows:

Section 710. Hillside Development
***




D
B. Applicability.




2.
***

Development of land in any zoning district within a hillside development area
shall also be regulated by the provisions of THIS section, 32-32 of the
Phoenix City Code, whether subdivided or not, and shall be subject to the
following special conditions:




a. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL BE APPLIED IN
PLACE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE BASE
ZONING DISTRICT OF A PROPERTY AS SET FORTH IN THIS
SECTION, AND SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED BY A ZONING
OVERLAY.

b. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO REGULATED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32-32 OF THE PHOENIX CITY CODE,
WHETHER SUBDIVIDED OR NOT.




C. Standards. T ***




***

2.



AF
Hillside development area standards. Special yard, height, area, and
coverage requirements for developments in the hillside areas in any zoning
district shall be as follows:

Table 1

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family




RDEVELOPMENT
OPTION
a. Single-family
Residential
(Conventional,
Standard and
Average Lot
Options)
Residential
(Planned
Residential
Development
Option, and
Planned Area
Development)
c. Multi-Family
Residential
d. Any Non-
Residential
Zoning District




D
MINIMUM LOT
AREA
18,000 square
feet*

*Lot areas of
more than
eighteen
As required by
zoning district
as required by
zoning district
As required by
zoning district




HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


thousand
(18,000) square
feet may be
required in order
T
AF to provide a
suitable building
site meeting the
grading
standards of
Section 32-32 of
the Phoenix City
Code.

In no case shall
residential lots




R contain an area
less than the
minimum area
required by the
zoning district in
which such lots




D are located.


MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS


• WIDTH

• DEPTH
120*

120'*
As required by
zoning district
As required by
zoning district
As required by
zoning district




HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


*Unless in
conformance with
Section 32-32(M)
of the City Code
T
AF
REQUIRED SETBACKS




• FRONT YARD




• REAR YARD
As required by
zoning district




As required by
zoning district
As required by
zoning district




As required by
zoning district
Minimum 30'*




Minimum 30'*
As required by
zoning district or
minimum 30'*


Minimum 30'*




R As required by
zoning district or
ten (10) feet,
whichever is
greater
As required by
zoning district or
ten (10) feet,
whichever is
greater
Minimum
15'**Building
heights greater
than fifteen (15)
feet: required
yard plus one (1)
Minimum 15'*,
whichever is
greater*Building
heights greater
than fifteen (15)
feet: required




D
• SIDE YARDS additional foot for
each foot of
building height
exceeding 15'
measured from
exterior
boundaries
yard plus one (1)
additional foot for
each foot of
building height
exceeding 15'
measured from




HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)




T exterior
boundaries




AF
MAXIMUM
COVERAGE
UNDER ROOF
The main building
and all accessory
buildings shall
not occupy more
than twenty-five
percent (25%) of
the hillside
portion of the lot
or parcel
The main
building and all
accessory
buildings shall
not occupy more
than twenty-five
percent (25%) of
the hillside
portion of the lot
or parcel
The main
building and all
accessory
buildings shall
not occupy more
than twenty-five
percent (25%) of
the hillside
portion of the lot
or parcel
The main building
and all accessory
buildings shall not
occupy more than
twenty-five
percent (25%) of
the hillside
portion of the lot
or parcel or as
required by
zoning district,




R
MAXIMUM
No building shall
exceed a height
of two (2) stories,
not to exceed
No building shall
exceed a height
of two (2) stories,
not to exceed
No building shall
exceed a height
of two (2) stories,
not to exceed
whichever is less


No building shall
exceed a height
of two (2) stories,
not to exceed




D
BUILDING
HEIGHT
thirty (30) feet
above the natural
grade of the lot or
parcel at any
section through
the structure
thirty (30) feet
above the natural
grade of the lot or
parcel at any
section through
the structure
thirty (30) feet
above the natural
grade of the lot
or parcel at any
section through
the structure
thirty (30) feet
above the natural
grade of the lot or
parcel at any
section through
the structure




TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD: 18,000
SQUARE FEET, OR
AS REQUIRED BY

(1)
NET LOT AREA
(MINIMUM)
THE ZONING
DISTRICT,
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER
PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
TSAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT




(2)




(3)
AF
LOT WIDTH (1)
(MINIMUM)




LOT DEPTH (1)
(MINIMUM)



DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD: 120
FEET
PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT

STANDARD: 120
FEET
PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT




SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT




SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT




R
(4)




(5)
DENSITY
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
LOTS
(MAXIMUM)
AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1




AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1


30 FEET, OR AS




D
(6)




(7)
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)




REAR YARD
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT




SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT




SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
REQUIRED BY BASE
ZONING DISTRICT,
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.

30 FEET, OR AS
REQUIRED BY BASE
ZONING DISTRICT,
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.




TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD: 10 FEET STANDARD: 10 FEET
OR AS REQUIRED BY OR AS REQUIRED BY
BASE ZONING BASE ZONING 15 FEET, OR AS

(8)
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)
DISTRICT,
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.
PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
T DISTRICT,
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.
PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT
REQUIRED BY BASE
ZONING DISTRICT,
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.




(9)



(10)




(11)
AF
PROJECTIONS


PERIMETER
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)



BUILDING
HEIGHT
(MAXIMUM)
PER SECTION
701.A.3
PER SECTION
701.A.3


SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
NOT PERMITTED




15 FEET WHEN WITHIN 10 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED
DISTRICT BOUNDARY, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE
FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET, AS
MEASURED FROM THE NATURAL GRADE OF THE PROPERTY AT ANY
SECTION THROUGH THE STRUCTURE.




R
(12)
LOT COVERAGE
(MAXIMUM)



COMMON OPEN
FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS EQUAL
TO OR GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT: 25 PERCENT, OR AS
REQUIRED BY THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS LESS
THAN 10 PERCENT: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT.




D
(13)




(14)
SPACE
(MINIMUM)

STREET
FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT
(2)
SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT




SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT




TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

HILLSIDE: SECTION
32-32, CITY CODE.
HILLSIDE: SECTION HILLSIDE: SECTION
DESIGN REVIEW:
(15)
OTHER
APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS:
32-32, CITY CODE.
DESIGN REVIEW:
SECTION 507 TAB A.
T SECTION 507 TAB A.
MULTI-FAMILY:
SECTION 703.B
32-32, CITY CODE.
DESIGN REVIEW:
SECTION 507 TAB A.




AF
(1) MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED WHEN APPROVED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION 32-32.C.3.M,
REGARDING PANHANDLE, DOUBLE FRONTAGE, AND OTHER UNORTHODOX LOTS.

(2) STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED WHEN
APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION 32-
32.C.3.N, REGARDING HILLSIDE STREET AND PAVING STANDARDS.

***

SECTION 23: That Chapter 12, Sections 1203.C and D (Land Use Matrix), is

amended to read as follows:




R
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix (Downtown Code)


Section 1203. Land Use Matrix
***




***




D
C. Land Use Matrix.




LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS




BioMed Van Buren Warehouse
ACTIVE USE Central Park




RESIDENTIAL USES
D Business Core
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway
East Evergreen
Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park




*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling Unit, Single- np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Family, Detached
(Including Duplex and
Triplex Uses)
*** *** ***
R *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
AF ***




T
***

D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with
conditions (pc) OR USE PERMIT (up) as indicated with a number that corresponds
with the Land Use Matrix in Section 1203.C:

***
27. Single-Family Infill (SFI) subdivision, per Sections 608.F.6 and 614, Table
614.B SECTION 608.I, except as modified below:




e. T ***

Frontage requirements: as per the applicable character area; or if lots
front on a something other than a frontage zone, per the regulations




AF g.
of Sections 608.F.6 and 614, Table B, Column D SECTION 608.I.

***

Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home
occupations per Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter
street (not an alley) may have additional uses as permitted per the
applicable character area. Single-family detached units are permitted
for no more than 20 percent of the units in an SFI development to
allow for variety and efficiency of design.

***




R SECTION 24: That Chapter 12, Section 1205 (Frontage Elements), is amended

to read as follows:

Section 1205. Frontage Elements (Downtown Code)




D
A.
***

Active Front Yard (AFY). An active front yard is a frontage element intended for use
on blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex
style residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses
which are nonresidential, or on residential lots with more than two FOUR
PRIMARY dwelling units (not including ADUs). (R*)




1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and
improvements in the frontage zone shall be constructed as approved by
Historic Preservation.

2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be
installed in conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit
Design Standards) II.C.9 (RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW). If any of
the requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 conflict with provisions
of the Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 requirements shall
prevail.




T ***


SECTION 25: That Chapter 13, Section 1303 (Transect Lot Standards) is




AF
amended to read as follows:

Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards (WU Code)
Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter,
including frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting
public streets, private accessways, and private driveways, with the following
caveats:




R a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family Infill
development option SUBDIVISION standards per Section 608.F.6
and Table 614.B, column D (except for the density, which is not
restricted) 608.I if it meets all three of the following conditions:

(1) The development SUBDIVISION consists solely of single-




D family dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;




(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the
single-family infill development option or the infill development
district as depicted on the map provided in Section 608.F.6;
and
THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL
PLAN OR IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS
OBTAINED USE PERMIT APPROVAL; AND




b.
(3)

T
The development SUBDIVISION is located in any transect
other than T3.

All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision




2.
AF Ordinance (Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the
Subdivision Committee to further the goals of the Walkable Urban
Code.

All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the
same setback and stepback standards as the single-family infill
development option (Table 614.B, column D); with additional requirements
as follows: BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STEPBACK AND
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN
FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT




R MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT. THIS stepback provision shall not exceedREQUIRE
GREATER THAN A maximum 75-foot setback from rear and side
property lines for building height before THE maximum height IS
allowed.




D ***


SECTION 26: That Chapter 13, Section 1306 (Land Use Matrix) is amended to

read as follows:




Section 1306. Land Use Matrix
Section 1306. Land Use Matrix

***

B. Use Regulations.

***




CATEGORY:
RESIDENTIAL USES
T
Table 1306.1 Land Use Matrix


T3 T4 T5:2 T5:3 T5:5 T5:6 T5:7 T6:7
T6:15
T6:22
T6:
HWR

***


(Including Duplex and Triplex Uses)



SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION

***
AF
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Detached


Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Attached
***

P


P

NP

***
***

P


P

PC

***


***
***

NP


P

PC

***
***

NP


P

PC

***
***

NP


P

PC

***
***

NP


P

PC

***
***

NP


P

PC

***
***

NP


P

PC

***
***

NP


P

PC

***




R
C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.




4.
***

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION
1303.A.1.a.




D ***

SECTION 27: That Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking and Loading Standards) is

amended to read as follows:




Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.
Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.

***

B. Required Vehicular Parking.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking




USE MEASURE T3 T T4
T5

1—5
Stories
T5

6—10
Stories
T6 MEASURE



***

Residential, Single-Family
Attached


*** AF ***


Per unit



***
*** *** *** *** *** ***

Per Section 608.F.6 608.I, if developing under the
provisions of Section 1303.A.1.a; otherwise per Section
702.

***


***
*** *** *** *** ***




R
D
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of November, 2025.



________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk T
AF
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager




R
D
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Z-TA-1-25-Y
and Rezoning Case No. Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025

Application No. Z-TA-1-25-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating
a Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various other sections of the Zoning
Ordinance to clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related state
requirements related to Middle Housing, as follows:

Section 202 (Definitions), Section 507 Tab A (Guidelines for Design Review), Section
608 (Residence Districts), Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District),
Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District), Section 611 (R1-10 Single-
Family Residence District), Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District),
Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District), Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily
Residence District), Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District), Section 616 (R-3A
Multifamily Residence District), Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District),
Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District), Section 619 (Residential R-4A
District—Multifamily Residence—General), Section 622 (Commercial C-1 District—
Neighborhood Commercial), Section 623 (Commercial C-2 District—Intermediate
Commercial), Section 624 (Commercial C-3 District—General Commercial), Section
632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High Density District), Section 701 (Bulk
Regulations), Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), Section 703 (Landscaping,
Fences, and Walls), Section 710 (Hillside Development), Section 708 (Temporary
uses), Section 1203 (Land Use Matrix, Downtown Code), Section 1205 (Frontage
Elements, Downtown Code), Section 1303 (Transect Lot Standards, WU Code), Section
1306 (Land Use Matrix, WU Code), and Section 1307 (Parking and Loading Standards,
WU Code).

Application No. Z-3-25-4-7-8: Map the boundaries for the Middle Housing Overlay
District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within one mile of the Downtown Code
boundary.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-1-25-Y as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A; and Z-3-25-4-7-8 be approved as shown in Exhibit B.



Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


BACKGROUND
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2721, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session and signed into law by the Governor (2024) which created
Section 9-462.13, Arizona Revised Statutes to require municipalities to allow Middle
Housing in an area within one mile of Downtown, in addition to 20% of any new
subdivision citywide. “Middle Housing” is defined by the state statute as “buildings that
are compatible in scale, form and character with single-family houses and that contain
two or more attached, detached, stacked or clustered homes [and] includes duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes and townhouses.”

PURPOSE
The primary intent of the proposed text amendment is to establish the Middle Housing
(MH) Overlay District, Section 632, which will allow the development of middle housing
on lots zoned for single-family use, and apply it to the area located within one mile of
Downtown by January 1, 2026, as required by state law. The secondary purpose is to
make other revisions to multiple sections of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to ensure
proper compliance with the new state requirements.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) creation of the
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District, Section 632; 2) revisions to various sections of
the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with the requirements of Arizona Revised
Statutes, Section 9-462.13; and 3) revisions to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance
to correctly clarify and cross-reference the zoning ordinance terms and provisions which
were updated for compliance with the requirements of the new state law.

1. Creation of the Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District
The Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District is created as Section 632, replacing the
obsolete High-Rise H-R1 District which has since been supplanted by the Downtown
Code (Chapter 12). The MH Overlay district has two main purposes: to allow up to
four primary dwelling units (PDU) on lots which are otherwise permitted a single-
family home, and to ensure that the applicable development standards are both
consistent with those used for single-family homes in the same district, as well as
compliant with the requirements and restrictions of A.R.S. Section 9-462.13.

Opt-In Provision
The MH Overlay District also includes the qualification requirements and procedure
for up to 20% of the lots in new residential subdivisions that are at least 10
contiguous acres in size. The Opt-In Provision does not apply to existing residential
subdivisions.

Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


2. Revisions needed for compliance with A.R.S. 9-462.13.
Revisions to the development standards/development options tables are required to
lawfully administer the provisions and prohibitions of A.R.S. 9-462.13. It is the
following prohibitions which primarily caused the need for the changes:

B. “The municipality may not do any of the following:

1. Discourage the development of middle housing through requirements or
actions that individually or cumulatively make impracticable the permitting,
siting, or construction of middle housing.
2. Restrict middle housing types to less than two floors.
3. Restrict middle housing types to a floor area ratio of less than fifty percent.
4. Set restrictions, permitting or review processes for middle housing that are
more restrictive than those for single-family dwellings within the same
zone.
5. Require owner occupancy of any structures on the lot.
6. Require any structures to comply with a commercial building code or to
contain a fire sprinkler.
7. Require more than one off-street parking space per unit.

Text Revisions
The following summarizes the text revisions necessary to comply with these
prohibitions:

• The “Conventional” development option has been removed, because the
development standards are not consistent with development in historic
districts, and current ordinance permissions would allow development of
middle housing to different and incompatible standards within older/historic
subdivisions.
• The “Average Lot” development option, which has been prohibited in most
districts since 1998 for single-family development, has been removed
because it could be used as a way to develop middle housing in areas not
required by the state law, or be viewed as not applying consistent
development standards to both single-family and middle housing, which is
required by the new state law.
• The “Single-Family Infill (SFI)” development option has been removed from
each section, and all development standards (and use permit requirements)
relocated to Section 608.I.
• The separate, but same-named “Planned Residential Development” options
having different standards for single-family and multi-family development

Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


have been combined into one development option, with consistent
development standards for both multi-family (including middle housing) and
single-family development.
• The “Standard” development option has been created, which is essentially a
renaming of the existing “Subdivision” development option. The development
standards of the Standard option are the same as the Subdivision option, with
minor clarifications to allow for consistent application of development
standards for both multi-family (including middle housing) and single-family
development in the same zone. Most homes in historic districts were
constructed using the Subdivision option standards, and the new Standard
option ensures that new development, including middle housing, will develop
with the same historic zoning regulations.
• Lot coverage has been revised by the MH Overlay to apply the same
standard to both single-family and multi-family development when located
within an MH district. When combined with the RE-43, RE-35, RE-24, and
R1-14 districts, the MH district allows an increase to 50% coverage when all
structures on the site are one-story, maximum 20 feet in height.
• Required on-site parking has been reduced to one space per primary dwelling
unit, as required by the new state law.
• Individual lot design review for single-family lots (Section 507 Tab A, II.C.8)
has been revised to be applicable to both single-family homes and middle
housing (up to four units on a lot) and moved to its own section, Section 507
Tab A, II.C.9.
• The residential land use matrix (Section 608.D) has been revised to move the
permissions for Single-Family Infill subdivisions to the table, and to remove
“duplex” and “triplex” as separate uses (they are both forms of multi-family
dwelling units).
• Section 1203, Downtown Code land use matrix, has also been updated to
remove “duplex” and “triplex” as separate uses (they are both forms of multi-
family dwelling units).
• Section 608.G has been revised to clearly explain how developments which
were approved using development options no longer permitted convert to the
current ordinance standards. Any existing approved documents using a
now-archaic development option are still valid.
• Section 702, Off-Street Parking and Loading, has been revised to clarify front
yard paving restrictions and apply consistently to both single-family and multi-
family development.




Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


Definitions
Definitions have been revised for several reasons: to provide clarity in application of
the new requirements; to be consistent with definitions used in the state law; and to
properly cross-reference other terms which have been revised.

Of special note, “Primary Dwelling Unit (PDU)” was added to clearly differentiate
from “Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)”. This is the manner in which the MH overlay
district allows additional PDUs per lot (up to 4), while not increasing the number of
permitted subdivided lots.

3. Revisions for clarification and cross-references.
Other revisions were made to correctly reference new and revised terms, as well as
relocated/renumbered sections of the Zoning Ordinance, with no substantive
revisions:

• Section 608.H, Density Bonus, has been updated to reference the revised
development options in each district.
• All Single-Family Infill (SFI) subdivision regulations have been consolidated in
Section 608.I.
• Off-Site Manufactured Home Development regulations have been moved to
Section 608.J.
• The C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts have been updated to correctly reference
standards for Single-Family Infill subdivisions and Off-Site Manufactured
Home Developments, in addition to clarifying language regarding existing
residential use permissions.
• Section 701.A.3, regarding yard projections, has been updated to reference
revised residential development options.
• Section 703, Landscaping, Fences, and Walls, has been updated to apply to
lots having up to four dwelling units, rather than just single-family and duplex.
• Section 710, Hillside Development, has been updated to cross-reference
revised residential development options.
• Section 1205, Frontage Elements (Downtown Code), has been updated to
cross-reference the revised Residential Lot Design Review standards
provided in Section 507 Tab A, II.C.9.
• Section 1303, Transect Lot standards (WU Code) has been updated to cross-
reference the relocated Single-Family Infill regulations moved to Section
608.I.
• Section 1306, Land Use Matrix (WU Code), has been updated to remove the
terms “duplex” and “triplex” as well as add the Single-Family Infill (SFI)
subdivision option as a permitted use.

Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


• Section 1307, Parking and Loading Standards (WU Code), has been updated
to correctly cross-reference the relocated Single-Family Infill regulations
moved to Section 608.I.

REZONING CASE NO. Z-3-25-4-7-8
A.R.S Section 9-462.13 requires that the area located within one mile of Downtown be
provided the entitlement for middle housing no later than January 1, 2026. Rezoning Case
No. Z-3-25-4-7-8 has been created to map the boundaries of the MH Overlay district, as
described above, to this area with the exceptions as required by the new state law. The
applicable exception is for the territory in the vicinity of Phoenix Sky Harbor airport (south
of Downtown). The map of the proposed boundary is attached as Exhibit B.

CONCLUSION
This text amendment is quite extensive due to the need to apply development
regulations consistently for both single-family housing and middle housing, in addition to
making sure that middle housing is permitted where required. All of the revisions
proposed are directly related to changes needed to allow middle housing as required by
A.R.S. Section 9-462.13.

The proposed text amendment will create a Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District;
revise various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with the
requirements of Section 9-462.13, Arizona Revised Statutes; and revise various
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to correctly clarify and cross-reference the zoning
ordinance terms and provisions which were updated for compliance with the
requirements of the new state law.

Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-1-25-Y per the language in Exhibit A, and Z-3-
25-4-7-8 be approved as shown in Exhibit B.

Writer
C. DePerro
August 29, 2025

Team Leader
Tricia Gomes

Exhibits
A. Proposed Language—Z-TA-1-25-Y
B. Proposed Boundary Sketch Map—Z-3-25-4-7-8



Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-1-25-Y


Proposed Language:


Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:

Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as
follows:

***
Building Envelope: The area defined on a lot in which all improvements must be made,
including grading and alterations to existing landscaping. These include, but are not
limited to house, accessory buildings, pool, patios, driveways, visitor parking, fencing, or
walls. The building envelope defines the maximum allowable construction/improvement
area on the lot. The building envelope must be identified on all design review submittals.
THE AREA OF A LOT EXCLUSIVE OF ALL REQUIRED YARDS.

***
Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is situated. On lots with only single-family residential uses, the primary
dwelling unit shall be considered the main building. WHEN ONLY ONE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED ON A LOT, THAT PDU SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE
MAIN BUILDING. WHEN MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS
PROVIDED ON A LOT, EACH BUILDING WHICH CONTAINS A PDU SHALL BE
CONSIDERED A MAIN BUILDING.

***
Building, Open, Porch: An open building used solely for ingress and egress and not for
occupancy, at least two sides of which shall be at least 50% open.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for
residential purposes for one family and containing independent living and sleeping areas,
together with independent sanitary (toilet, sink, and bath/shower) and cooking facilities.
The presence of cooking facilities conclusively establishes the intent to use for residential
purposes.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section,
subordinate to the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same SINGLE-FAMILY lot.
ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross density.

Adaptable Dwelling Units, ADAPTABLE: A dwelling unit designed to be capable of simple
conversion into an accessible dwelling unit.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed having a
shared wall and attached foundations with the primary dwelling unit. An ADU connected
to the primary dwelling unit in any other manner shall not be considered an attached
ADU.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed with no
connection to the primary dwelling unit, except as may be explicitly permitted within the
zoning ordinance. A detached ADU may include an integrated garage, carport, or porch.
Two ADUs attached to each other, but not to the primary dwelling unit, shall each be
considered a detached ADU.

Dwelling Unit, Primary (PDU): FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, a dwelling unit that is either
(1) the only dwelling unit provided on a single-family lot, or (2) the largest dwelling unit
provided on a single-family lot when the applicable zoning regulations otherwise allow an
accessory dwelling unit or other types of dwelling units. FOR A MULTI-FAMILY LOT OR
DEVELOPMENT, ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE CONSIDERED PRIMARY DWELLING
UNITS.

***
Entry, Front: An arcade, gated arch, covered porch, or COVERED patio, pergola,
COURTYARD, or similar architectural enhancement which clearly delineates the location
of, or AND path to, the front door A PRIMARY ENTRANCE, AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE
FRONT OF THE LOT.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Gross Area: The area of a lot or parcel including all dedicated streets, alleys, private
accessways roadway and/or alley easements, and canal rights-of-way. Such boundaries
shall extended to the center of existing abutting street or alley right-of-way. In the case of
an existing partial dedication or easement, the gross area shall not extend beyond what
would be the centerline of the full dedication. Further, parcels abutting: 1) a freeway; or 2)
a canal right-of-way when the abutting development has complied with the Canal Bank
Design Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab A, including landscaping of canal bank
right-of-way, shall include NO MORE THAN twenty-five feet of such right-of-way within
THE gross area.

***
Guesthouse: See "Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY."

***
Landscape Setback, Average: Repealed.

***
Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more PRIMARY dwelling units
are provided., not including permitted accessory dwelling units.

***
Net Area: The area of a lot or parcel excluding all dedicated streets or alleys ROAD AND
CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY and roadway or alley easements. but including twenty-five
(25) feet of abutting canal right-of-way when the abutting development has complied with
the Canal Bank Design Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab A, including landscaping
of canal bank right-of-way.

***
PARKING, COVERED: ONE OR MORE PARKING SPACES PROTECTED FROM THE
SUN AND WEATHER BY A CARPORT, GARAGE, ROOF OVERHANG, OR OTHER
TYPE OF ROOFED STRUCTURE.

***
Perimeter: The boundaries or boundary of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, PLATTED
SUBDIVISION, OR DEVELOPMENT.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Planned Residential Development: A DEVELOPMENT OPTION CONSISTING OF a
group of dwelling units with common OPEN SPACE areas which are designed as an
integrated functional unit A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT and with the permissibility of
potential bonus density and considerable flexibility in the selection of building setbacks,
lot areas, DWELLING UNIT TYPES, and street configurationS as long as the public
health, safety and welfare are maintained.

***
PORCH: A STRUCTURE, WITH OR WITHOUT A ROOF, THAT IS ATTACHED TO A
BUILDING AND IS AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OPEN ON THE UNATTACHED SIDE(S).

Porch, Open: See "Building, Open Porch".

***
Primary Entrance: A ground floor entrance to a commercial lobby or suite that is open to
the public during business hours, or an THE MAIN/VISITOR entrance to a SHARED
residential courtyard, unit, or lobby OR A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. Emergency,
service and storage room entrances are not a primary entranceS.

***
Projection: Any element or embellishment attached to a structure for environmental
protection or architectural enhancement which does not support any portion of
the structure. ANY PORTION OF A PERMITTED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT IS
ATTACHED TO THE MAIN BUILDING AND EXTENDS FROM THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE INTO A REQUIRED YARD OR SETBACK. A PROJECTION IS
CONSIDERED “OPEN” WHEN ALSO MEETING THE DEFINITION OF “OPEN
BUILDING”.

***
Residential Density: The number of dwelling units divided by the gross acres of the
legally described development area.

***
Setback, Landscaped, Average: The averaging of a required setback to encourage
variation along a single continuous plane of a building, perimeter wall or street frontage.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

SETBACK, GARAGE DOOR / CARPORT ENTRY: THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STREET AND COVERED PARKING. THIS DISTANCE
SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THE
GARAGE DOOR OR CARPORT, UNLESS THE PROPERTY HAS AN EASEMENT
DEDICATED ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FOR A SIDEWALK OR TRAIL, IN
WHICH CASE THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE LOT SIDE OF THE
EASEMENT TO THE FACE OF THE GARAGE DOOR OR CARPORT.

SETBACK, LANDSCAPE: A SETBACK WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING
IMPROVEMENTS: LIVE PLANT MATERIALS SUCH AS TREES, SHRUBS, AND
GROUNDCOVERS WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM; SIDEWALKS;
REQUIRED DRAINAGE FACILITIES; ENTRY MONUMENTS; SIGNS; PUBLIC ART
INSTALLATIONS, AND WALLS AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THIS ORDINANCE.
PARKING AND MANEUVERING IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN A LANDSCAPE
SETBACK EXCEPT FOR APPROVED STREET AND DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS.

***
Shade Structure: A structure, such as a pergola, arbor, or open COVERED porch, which
is designed and used for protection OF OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS from the sun and
which contains at least HAS A MINIMUM OF one (1) side which is at least fifty 50 percent
(50%) open.

***
STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT: THE TYPE OR CLASS OF STREET ON
WHICH THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT MUST ABUT.

***
STREET, PERIMETER: ANY PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY WHICH
FORMS THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF A SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. THIS
DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CANAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY, UNLESS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ALSO A NAMED STREET USED
FOR THE LEGAL ADDRESSES OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into three or more lots, tracts or
parcels PARCELS of which the original land area is greater than two and one half acres,
Land for which a subdivision plat has been APPROVED AND recorded IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE SECTION 32-32, OR
BY MARICOPA COUNTY IF RECORDED PRIOR TO ANNEXATION., and for any
condominium, community apartment, townhouse or similar project.

Subdivision, Average Lot: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the
number of dwelling units LOTS in a development rather than by minimum lot size. SEE
“PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”.

Subdivision, Conventional: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the
density provisions within each zoning district, and by development standards related to
lot width, the management of stormwater, the provision of infrastructure requirements
and constraints related to the property topography or configuration. SEE “SUBDIVISION,
STANDARD”.

Subdivision, Planned Residential Development: See "Planned Residential Development".

SUBDIVISION, Single-Family Infill (SFI) Development: A type of single-family
development consisting of townhouses and a limited number of detached dwelling units.
Perimeter standards are defined and potential bonus density and design flexibility allow
for quality individual property ownership within a larger development. A SUBDIVISION
APPROVED AND DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.

SUBDIVISION, STANDARD: A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE STANDARD OPTION OF A
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. A SUBDIVISION PLAT SUBTITLED “A
CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION”, “SUBDIVISION OPTION”, OR HAVING NO
SUBTITLE SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED A STANDARD SUBDIVISION.

Subdivision, Zero Lot Line: A subdivision in which the main building may be constructed
without a side yard.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TRACT: A PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED WITHIN A SUBDIVISION WHICH IS NOT
CONSIDERED A LOT AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET MINIMUM LOT
DIMENSIONS. A TRACT MAY BE DEVELOPED ONLY WITH SUBDIVISION
AMENITIES, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPE, OR OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED FOR THE TRACT IN THE
DEDICATION STATEMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT.

***
Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground
upward except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal
distance from a building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted
projects PROJECTIONS, to the property line opposite such building line in the side or
rear yards, or to the street right-of-way or easement in the front yard; provided, however,
that where a future width line is established by the provisions of this ordinance for any
street bounding the lot, then such measurement shall be taken from the line of the
building to such future width line.

***


Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A (Guidelines for Design Review) to read as
follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines
indicated with the markers (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced
in the same manner as indicated in Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R),
(R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as (R).

***

C. Subdivision and Single-Family Detached RESIDENTIAL LOT Design
Review.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


8. Single-Family Detached SUBDIVISION DIVERSITY Design
Review. New single-family detached dwelling units, lots having a
single duplex or triplex, manufactured homes, and modular homes
shall be subject to design review SUBDIVISIONS HAVING AT
LEAST TEN PERCENT OF LOTS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 65
FEET IN WIDTH, AND HAVING DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS; AND MANUFACTURED AND/OR MODULAR
HOME SUBDIVISIONS REGARDLESS OF LOT WIDTH, ARE
SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW DIVERSITY GUIDELINES 8.1
THROUGH 8.4, as follows (R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where ten percent or
more of the lots are equal to or less than 65 feet in width shall
incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

(b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or
parcel of 65 feet in width or less, shall incorporate Design
Guidelines Section 8.5. This requirement includes lots with a
single duplex or triplex when not located in a subdivision
subject to Section 507 Tab A.II.C.8(a).

(c) Dwelling units on lots zoned or designated HP are exempt
from the provisions of Design Guidelines Section 8.5, so long
as the plans are reviewed and approved through historic
preservation prior to issuance of any building permits.

(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of
lot width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1
through 8.4.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

The design guidelines in each of the following sections (subdivision design,
housing design, garage treatment, and community safety) must be satisfied
in one of two ways. The first method, called the standard approach, is to
meet each of the design guidelines as written in the following tables. The
second method, called the alternative approach, allows consideration of
creative design solutions on a section by section basis, as long as the intent
of that section has been met. Either method may be used for all or some of
the following sections. For example, an applicant may choose the standard
approach for the subdivision design and garage treatment sections and the
alternative approach for the housing design and community safety sections
or the standard approach may be used for all four sections. Whether the
alternative approach is acceptable will be determined by the design advisor
of the Planning and Development Department.

Diversity: The goal of diversity is to provide a variety of subdivision and
housing designs which lend visual interest and distinctive character and
identity to the community. This goal is addressed in two subsections,
subdivision design and housing design.

8.1. Subdivision Design. Provide subdivision designs which
address the goal of diversity by incorporating these or
substantially equivalent design characteristics: 1) Vary the
building’s relationship to the street, 2) Vary the driveway
orientation or location, 3) Vary the relationship between
buildings, and 4) Vary street orientation.

Design Guidelines: All are required (R*), unless otherwise
noted.

***

8.5. Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these
individual unit design standards is to ensure a minimum level
of design quality for detached single-family dwelling units,
duplexes, manufactured homes, and modular homes. For
information on relief from requirements (R) and (R*), and
presumptions (P), refer to Section 507.C of the Zoning
Ordinance.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered
parking space located in a garage or under a carport.
(R)

(b) The front yard, excluding areas approved for vehicle
access, should be landscaped with the following
elements: (P)

(1) A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater,
drought resistant, accent tree.

(2) A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs.

(3) Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

(4) An irrigation system.

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.

(c) Required covered parking shall not be located more
than ten feet closer to the front property line than the
front entry. (R*)

Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in
front of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential
character and compatibility with surrounding residences
is negatively impacted.

(d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, nondecorative corrugated metal and fencing
made or topped with razor, concertina, or barbed wire.
(R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


(e) Development of lots with more than one dwelling unit
should provide a single, common access drive to
parking areas. (P)

Rationale: Shared access and common parking
minimize unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the
streetscape. Common parking areas also reduce the
paved area of a site.

(f) All dwelling units should provide the following
architectural design elements: (P)

(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of
the building.

(2) Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building.

(3) Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or
single doors.

(4) Materials such as untextured concrete,
unfinished block, steel panels, and shiny or
highly reflective detailing should not be used as a
predominant exterior material.

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture.

(g) Garage doors facing the public street and attached to
the primary dwelling unit should not exceed 50 percent
of the building width. (P)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic
focus of a house; they should complement and appear
subordinate to the main structure. This is particularly
important if a duplex or triplex is constructed.

(h) A front entry shall be provided that faces and is visible
from the street, and includes an architectural feature to
call attention to it (such as a porch, entry patio, stoop,
awning/canopy, courtyard, or archway). For lots having
more than one dwelling unit, a minimum of one unit
shall comply with this requirement. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade
adds to the residential character of new dwelling units
and provides eyes on the street.

(i) Manufactured homes shall provide the following
additional architectural design elements:

(1) Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall
be used as a predominant exterior material. (P)

(2) The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of
3/12 for units 28 feet or less in width and be
covered with shingles, tile or metal, excluding
aluminum. (R*)

(3) A minimum 50-square-foot recessed entry or
covered porch shall be provided along the front
entry of the building. (R*)

(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors
that are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest
finished grade. (R*)

(6) The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.

Section 507 Tab A, II.C.9 Residential Lot Design Review
9. RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW. THE FOLLOWING DESIGN
REVIEW REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS
THAT ARE 65 FEET OR LESS IN WIDTH AND HAVE FOUR OR
FEWER PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT, AND ANY LOT
HAVING A MANUFACTURED OR MODULAR HOME, WITH THE
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

a. THE LOT IS WITHIN AN APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY
INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION;

b. THE LOT IS SUBJECT TO SECTION II.C.8 (SUBDIVISION
DIVERSITY DESIGN REVIEW); OR

c. THE LOT IS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING
PERMITS.

9.1 ALL DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT SHALL EXHIBIT A
DESIGN SCALE, FORM, AND CHARACTER OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME. (P)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

RATIONALE: NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD RESPECT
THE DESIGN AND CHARACTER OF EXISTING
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS, REGARDLESS OF THE
NUMBER OF UNITS PROVIDED ON A LOT. BUILDING
MATERIALS SHOULD MATCH OR COMPLEMENT THE
MATERIALS USED ON EXISTING HOMES IN THE VICINITY.

9.2 THE FRONT YARD, EXCLUDING AREAS APPROVED FOR
VEHICLE ACCESS, SHOULD BE LANDSCAPED WITH THE
FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: (P)

(a) A MINIMUM OF ONE, TWO INCH CALIPER OR
GREATER, DROUGHT RESISTANT, ACCENT TREE.

(b) A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE GALLON OR GREATER,
DROUGHT RESISTANT SHRUBS.

(c) DUSTPROOFED WITH GROUND COVER, TURF,
ROCK, DECOMPOSED GRANITE, OR EQUIVALENT
MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(d) AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

RATIONALE: LANDSCAPING CONTRIBUTES TO AN
ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT, PROVIDES SHADE, AND
CONTRIBUTES TO NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY.

9.3 A MINIMUM OF ONE PRIMARY ENTRANCE SHALL BE
PROVIDED WHICH FACES AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE
STREET. (R*)

9.4 FOR TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, WINDOWS, BALCONIES
(WITH DOORS FOR ACCESS), OR DECKS SHALL BE
PROVIDED ON THE FRONT FAÇADE FOR A MINIMUM OF
ONE-QUARTER OF THE BUILDING WIDTH. (R*)

9.5 EACH DWELLING UNIT SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE
COVERED PARKING SPACE. (R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


9.6 FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL
BE NO WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE
BUILDING ENVELOPE AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. (R*)

9.7 GARAGES AND CARPORTS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED
MORE THAN TEN FEET CLOSER TO THE FRONT
PROPERTY LINE THAN THE CLOSEST PRIMARY
ENTRANCE. (R*)

9.8 WALLS, FENCES, AND ENCLOSURE MATERIALS SHALL
NOT INCLUDE CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH, OR WITHOUT,
PLASTIC OR METAL SLATS, SHEETING,
NONDECORATIVE CORRUGATED METAL AND FENCING
MADE OR TOPPED WITH RAZOR, CONCERTINA, OR
BARBED WIRE. (R*)

9.9 MANUFACTURED HOMES SHALL PROVIDE THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
ELEMENTS:

(a) MATERIALS SUCH AS WOOD, HARDBOARD, BRICK
VENEER, HARDIPLANK, STUCCO, OR HORIZONTAL
VINYL SIDING SHALL BE USED AS A
PREDOMINANT EXTERIOR MATERIAL. (P)

(b) THE EXPOSED ROOF PITCH SHALL BE AT A
MINIMUM OF 3/12 FOR UNITS 28 FEET OR LESS IN
WIDTH AND BE COVERED WITH SHINGLES, TILE
OR METAL, EXCLUDING ALUMINUM. (R*)

(c) A MINIMUM 50 SQUARE FOOT FRONT ENTRY
SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE STREET SIDE OF
THE BUILDING. (R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(d) PERMANENT ACCESS TO THE FRONT ENTRY
SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH MATERIALS AND
COLORS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
DWELLING UNIT. (P)

(e) A MASONRY STEM WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED
UNDER THE DWELLING UNIT WITH NO MORE THAN
SEVEN INCHES OF EXPOSED FOUNDATION
MEASURED FROM HIGHEST FINISHED GRADE. (R*)

(f) THE EXPOSED MASONRY STEM WALL COLOR
SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE TO THE DWELLING UNIT.
(P)

***


Section 608. Residential Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residential Districts.

A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide
areas of the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these
areas from the distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate
association with nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential,
limited nonresidential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are
designed to promote the creation and maintenance of areas in which individuals or
families may pursue residential activities with reasonable access to open space,
and streets or roads, in a setting which is not negatively impacted by adjacent
uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions placed upon them to limit
impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a public hearing
through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative impacts to
surrounding residential uses.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 619 and 635 are
designed to establish the character of new residential development and also to
preserve the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to new
development, these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the
development and improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the City Code.

This section applies to the residential districts in Sections 609 through 619, in
addition to Section 635 (Planned Area Development) when specified.

***
B. Applicability. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS RE-35, R1-
18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A (SECTIONS 609
THROUGH 619), AND WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS FOR OTHER
ZONING DISTRICTS.
of Development Options. The development of any parcel of land shall be in
accordance with the standards contained in any one development option as
contained in Sections 609 through 619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not
being further subdivided and located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts
(Sections 609 and 610) shall be in accordance with the requirements for the
standard subdivision development option (a), as contained in Sections 609 and
610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a subdivision platted prior to May 1, 1998,
not being further subdivided, and located in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning
districts (Sections 611 through 619), development shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the conventional subdivision option as contained in Sections 611
through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected
development option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was
subdivided or developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in
accordance with the standards under which the initial subdivision or development
occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1,
1998, shall be considered as follows:

1. Residential development with a site plan approved in accordance with
Section 507 shall be considered under the planned residential development
option.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


2. Residential development with an approved subdivision setback exhibit shall
be considered under the average lot development option if located in the
RE-35 through R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

3. Any other prior residential development shall be considered under the
development option selected when the property was subdivided.

A use permit shall not be required for new development on previously subdivided
property or property on which there is an approved site plan if the new
development is in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 608.D Residential Districts Land Use Matrix
D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

Table 608.D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ac) pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
(ADU)
(ac) Guestroom(s) pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3
Duplex np np pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4
Triplex np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5
Single-Family Attached pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc6 np
SUBDIVISION up5 up5 up5 up5 up5 up6
Multi-Family np np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Residential Convenience
(ac) np np np np np np np pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8
Market
Off-Site Manufactured Home
np np np np np up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 np
Developments
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in the table.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 608.E Land Use Conditions

E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted
one single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling
units, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

a. When a lot has no more than one single-family detached primary
dwelling, two ADUs are permitted in addition to the primary dwelling
unit. A third ADU may be permitted when at least one of the ADUs
qualifies as affordable housing and the net lot size is a minimum
43,560 square feet. However, lots having a duplex or triplex, single-
family attached units or any multi-family dwelling units are not
permitted any ADUs.

b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

3. Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling unit may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

4. Duplex.

a. Single-Family Lots. One duplex is permitted per lot when allowed by
the underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must
be of the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit
two dwelling units.

b. Multi-Family Lots. Duplexes are permitted when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of
the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit the
number of dwelling units proposed.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

4. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-FAMILY LOT
WHEN THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NO
REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

5. Triplex.

a. Single-Family Lots. One triplex is permitted per lot when allowed by
the underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must
be of the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit
three dwelling units.

b. Multi-Family Lots. Triplexes are permitted when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of
the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit the
number of dwelling units proposed.

5. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION. SFI SUBDIVISIONS PER
THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I ARE PERMITTED
WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND
BY USE PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE AREAS
DEPICTED IN FIGURE 608.I.1.

6. Single-Family Attached Dwelling Unit. One single-family attached dwelling
unit is permitted per single-family lot when allowed by the underlying zoning
district and development option.
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION—R-4A ONLY. SFI
SUBDIVISIONS PER THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I
ARE PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AND BY USE PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE
AREAS DEPICTED IN FIGURE 608.I.1. EXCEPT FOR THE PERMITTED
DENSITY, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL BE THE SAME AS
FOR THE R-4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, AS
MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

7. Multi-Family Dwelling Units. Multi-family dwelling units are permitted when
allowed by the underlying zoning district and development option EXCEPT
WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY
SUBDIVISION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

35. Off-site manufactured home developments are permitted with use permit
approval per Section 307, and subject to the development regulations
provided in Section 608.F.7 608.J.



Section 608.F (General Development Regulations)
F. Special GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Regulations.

1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 714, FUTURE WIDTH LINES, unless
exempted by this section.

2. In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width
prescribed for that street by the street classification map, and amendments
thereto, has been dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street
from which side the required width of dedication has been made shall be
deemed to have frontage on a street.

3. No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of
less than that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or
collector street or 25 feet for all other streets except for single-family
attached development individual dwelling units UNLESS THE LOT IS PART
OF A PLATTED SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH MODIFIED
STREET STANDARDS.

a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option
or for development built under a planned area development district, a
minimum of 16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when
all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.

(2) There are no restrictions to public access to the street.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(3) Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back
of curb.

(4) Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

(5) All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

(6) The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.

4. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

5. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the
following listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas,
noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on
which such items are displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.

b. Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

c. Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned
by persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the
premises.

d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or
ultimate use on other than the subject premises.

6. Single-Family Infill (SFI). Single-family infill development regulations may be
applied in zoning districts where the SFI development option is offered, but
only when the development falls within the infill development district
identified in the general plan, or with use permit approval within the following
areas located outside of the infill development district:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Figure 608.F.6. Single-Family Infill Development Areas




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. The SFI development option does not eliminate any redevelopment
area, special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur
between the requirements of the SFI development option and
redevelopment areas, overlay zoning districts, special planning
districts, and specific plans, the requirements of the overlay zoning
districts, special planning districts, redevelopment areas or specific
plans shall apply.

b. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the SFI development option.

c. Dwelling Units. The SFI development option is intended primarily for
single-family attached dwelling units; however, up to 20 percent of the
units in a development may be single-family detached dwelling units
to allow for variety and efficiency of design.

(1) Any provided detached dwelling units shall comply with the
same development regulations applicable to that SFI
development.

d. Design Requirements.

(1) Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a
feature such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

(2) Required covered parking spaces shall not front on perimeter
street rights-of-way.

(3) Individual unit rear yards shall not abut perimeter street ROW
or an adjacent perimeter street landscape area.

(4) Attached dwelling units constructed in a row shall not exceed a
total length of 200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide
open area.

e. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape
tract or community-maintained landscaping abutting the street,
except when within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape
tract or community-maintained landscaping abutting the street.

(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way and
adjacent to a single-family residential district or historic
preservation designated property must provide a minimum ten-
foot landscape setback. Walls/fences up to six feet high within
private rear yards may be provided within the perimeter
setback so long as the required landscape is still provided.

(4) Trees shall be provided in required landscape setbacks at a
minimum rate of 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings, as
approved by the PDD landscape architect, subject to the
following:

(a) Fifty percent of the required trees shall be minimum
one-and-one-half-inch caliper at the time of installation.

(b) Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be
minimum two-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the
time of installation.

(c) Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be
minimum three-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the
time of installation.

(5) A minimum of five five-gallon shrubs per tree shall be
provided.

f. Open Space Regulations. The only walls/fences allowed within
required common area open space are required pool security fences
and other necessary security fences, as approved by PDD.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

g. Parking Requirements. Section 702 applies to SFI development,
except where specifically modified by this section.

(1) Within the Infill Development District: one parking space per
dwelling unit must be provided that is covered or located within
a garage.

(2) Within the applicable SFI area that is not located within the
infill development district: two parking spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided that are covered or located within a garage.

(3) The required spaces for each dwelling unit must be located on
the same lot as the unit for which they are provided.

(4) A minimum 0.25 additional unreserved guest parking space
per dwelling unit must be provided within
any SFI development.

h. Alley Access and Maneuvering.

(1) All maneuvering for on-site parking must be located on private
property and not in public ROW.

(2) Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is
permitted within the infill development district.

(3) Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is
permitted applicable area outside of the infill development
district if all three conditions are met, as follows:

(a) The site is not across the alley from either a single-
family or historic preservation zoning district;

(b) Alley access is specifically approved as part of the use
permit hearing; and

(c) All necessary technical appeals have been approved.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

i. Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required setbacks
along perimeter street rights-of-way.

j. Signage is subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1,
Single-Family Residential.


7. Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments. Off-site manufactured home
development is subject to use permit approval in the C-1, C-2, and C-3
districts, in addition to zoning districts indicated in Section 608.D; and
subject to the following additional development regulations:

a. The provisions of Section 703.B do not apply to off-site manufactured
home developments.

b. These regulations apply to development of a single lot or parcel, not
to be further subdivided.

c. Placement for each off-site manufactured home shall be provided as
follows:

(1) There shall be a minimum of 20 feet between off-site
manufactured homes and ten feet between awnings and
canopies. All annexes or structural additions shall be
considered part of the off-site manufactured home.

(2) There shall be at least 40 feet between off-site manufactured
homes on opposite sides of a private accessway.

(3) No off-site manufactured home, annex or structural addition
shall be closer than eight feet to any private accessway or
private drive.

d. Each off-site manufactured home space shall have private outdoor
living space of at least 150 square feet. The dimension of this space
shall be at least 15 feet in width.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

e. At each occupied off-site manufactured home space, there shall be
an enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other bulky items
convenient to the space with a storage capacity of at least 150 cubic
feet.

f. All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall be
landscaped and maintained in accordance with the approved
development review documents required under Section 507.

g. Screening the perimeter of an off-site manufactured home
development by a wall or other approved material may be required as
a condition of use permit approval.

h. There shall be a network of pedestrian walkways connecting off-site
manufactured home spaces with each other and with development
facilities and amenities.

i. If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened storage yard
or yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Such storage yards shall
have a minimum of 60 square feet of storage space for each off-site
manufactured home space in the development and shall be located
so as to not detract from surrounding properties. All boats and
recreational vehicles shall be parked in the storage yard.

j. Each off-site manufactured home shall (1) be affixed permanently to
the ground or (2) have skirting around its perimeter to screen its
wheels and undercarriage.

k. All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio antenna
system shall be underground.

l. Not more than 15 percent of the spaces in any one off-site
manufactured home development shall be developed or used for
recreational vehicles.

m. Development of off-site manufactured home communities shall be
under the planned residential development option applicable in the
underlying zoning district.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

n. Private drives may be used for access to each off-site manufactured
home.

o. There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of the off-
site manufactured home development dedicated or reserved as
usable common open space land. Common open space lands shall
be clearly designated on the plan as to the character of use and
development but shall not include:

(1) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an individual
tenant or owner; nor

(2) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way; nor

(3) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas; nor

(4) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the site; nor

(5) Golf courses.

Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure permanent
retention of open space land area resulting from the application of
these regulations, either by private reservation for the use of the
residents within the development or by dedication to the public, or a
combination thereof.

Section 608.G (Development Options)
G. Reserved.
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. EACH RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RE-35,
R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A) PROVIDES
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
ADDITIONALLY, DIFFERENT SETS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(“DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS”) ARE PROVIDED WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING
DISTRICTS.

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL OR LAND SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET
FORTH FOR A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

b. A DEVELOPMENT OPTION FOR A PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED
ESTABLISHED IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE:

(1) A PRELIMINARY OR FINAL SITE PLAN HAS BEEN
APPROVED FOR A PROPERTY AND IS STILL
CONSIDERED VALID PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
507.K.6.

(2) THE PROPERTY HAS STRUCTURES FOR WHICH
BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS FOR A DEVELOPMENT OPTION WHICH WAS
VALID AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.

(3) THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A PLATTED AND RECORDED
SUBDIVISION (ALSO SEE SUBSECTION G.2 BELOW).

c. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS ALREADY BEEN
ESTABLISHED FOR A PROPERTY, SUBSEQUENT
DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE
ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL PER SECTION 307 IS OBTAINED, WITH THE
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

(1) THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REZONED PER SECTION 506
(BASE ZONING ONLY; DOES NOT INCLUDE HEIGHT OR
DENSITY WAIVERS, SPECIAL PERMITS, OR ADDITION OF
OVERLAY DISTRICTS); OR

(2) THE PROPERTY IS A PREVIOUSLY PLATTED
SUBDIVISION AND THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION IS TO BE
REPLATTED; OR




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(3) THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND IS BEING PLATTED AS A
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION; OR

(4) THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A MASTER PLAT SUCH AS:
STATE PLATS; AGRICULTURAL/RANCHING
SUBDIVISIONS; PLATS USED TO MAKE DEDICATIONS
AND CREATE DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS WITHIN MASTER-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; OR OTHER ATYPICAL
SUBDIVISION PLATS AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR.

d. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NEVER BEEN ESTABLISHED
FOR A PROPERTY, ANY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION
MAY BE CHOSEN.

2. PLATTED SUBDIVISION LOTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OPTION STATED IN THE TITLE
OF THE PLAT, AS FOLLOWS:

a. DEVELOPMENTS HAVING AN APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN OR
APPROVED SETBACK EXHIBIT ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY INSTEAD CHOOSE TO
APPLY THE STANDARDS APPROVED PER THE PLAN/EXHIBIT, IF
DIFFERENT FROM CURRENT STANDARDS. HOWEVER, ANY
AMENDMENT TO A FINAL SITE PLAN OR SETBACK EXHIBIT
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
OPTIONS AND STANDARDS.

b. PLATS TITLED “STANDARD”, “SUBDIVISION”, “CONVENTIONAL”,
OR HAVING NO REFERENCE TO A DEVELOPMENT OPTION
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF
THE STANDARD OPTION.

c. PLATS TITLED “AVERAGE LOT” OR “PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

d. PLATS TITLED “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED” OR “SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION, IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.

e. PLATS TITLED “PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 635 WHEN ZONED
PAD-1 THROUGH PAD-15. OTHER PLATS WITH THE SAME
TITLE BUT NOT ZONED PAD-1 THROUGH PAD-15 SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, OR THE BASE
REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IF THE PRD OPTION IS NOT
OFFERED.

f. FOR OTHER PLAT TITLES NOT IDENTIFIED WITHIN THIS
SECTION, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL DETERMINE
THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND REGULATIONS.

3. STANDARD OPTION. WHEN A ZONING DISTRICT PROVIDES
MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FOR THE STANDARD OPTION ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR THAT
DISTRICT. IF ONLY ONE SET OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS
PROVIDED FOR A ZONING DISTRICT, THOSE STANDARDS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED THE STANDARD OPTION.

4. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION. WHEN THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS UTILIZED FOR A
SUBDIVISION AND/OR DEVELOPMENT, A SITE PLAN MUST BE
SUBMITTED, REVIEWED, AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 507. THE SITE PLAN SHALL ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE
WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PRD
OPTION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Section 608.H (Bonus Provisions)
H. Reserved. BONUS PROVISIONS.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION DENSITY BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING
THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, SINGLE-
FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-
3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY AS
SHOWN IN TABLE 608.H.1 BY PROVIDING SITE AMENITIES AND
ENHANCEMENTS FROM TABLE 608.H.2, UP TO THE MAXIMUM
DENSITY PERMITTED BY THE DISTRICT:



TABLE 608.H.1
PERMISSIBLE DENSITY BONUS BY DISTRICT

0.05 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
RE-35 AND R1-18
EARNED

0.10 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R1-10, R1-8, AND R1-6
EARNED

0.25 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R-2, R-3, AND R-3A
EARNED

0.50 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R-4 AND R-5
EARNED




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT

INCREASE COMMON LANDSCAPED SETBACK
10 PTS. 1. ADJACENT TO PERIMETER STREET TO A MINIMUM 20
FEET.

PROVIDE A MAJOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A
MINIMUM 1,500 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
10 PTS./FEATURE 2.
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

PROVIDE A MINOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A
MINIMUM 1,000 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
5 PTS./FEATURE 3.
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

STREETSCAPE

PROVIDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS SEPARATED FROM
THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 5-FOOT WIDE PLANTING
AREA. PLANTING AREA SHALL BE PLANTED WITH
20 PTS. 4. MINIMUM 24-INCH BOX SIZE TREES PLANTED AT A
RATE OF 1 PER LOT, TURF OR 5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS
FOR EVERY TREE AND GROUND COVER; AND
SUPPLIED WITH AN ADEQUATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

PROVIDE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION FOR ALL
FRONT YARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH
10 PTS. 5.
SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF 1 24-INCH BOX TREE,
5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER.

RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 5 BONUS POINTS FOR
5 PTS. 5A.
EACH ADDITIONAL TREE (MINIMUM 15-GALLON).




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR DRIVEWAYS AND ON-LOT
SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST
10 PTS. 6.
OF CONSISTENT ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE
FEATURES, E.G. INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS,
BORDERS.

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE STREETS. PARTIAL
10 PTS. 7. TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL
10 PTS. 8. TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.,
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.

2 PTS./FEATURE 9. PROVIDE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLANDS.

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET FURNITURE
5 PTS. 10. PACKAGE CONSISTING OF CUSTOM STREET SIGNS,
BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES.

PROVIDE CUSTOM STREETLIGHT STANDARDS
5 PTS. 11.
AND/OR FIXTURES.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREETSCAPE PLAN,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR OTHER MEANS
WHICH SHALL ADDRESS VISUAL INTEREST AT A
PEDESTRIAN SCALE; RHYTHM, FORM AND MASSING;
25 PTS. 12. AND RELATIONSHIP OF UNITS TO EACH OTHER FOR
THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. SUCH PLAN SHALL
PROVIDE ELEVATIONS, COLOR OPTIONS, AND LIMIT
WHICH MODEL(S)/ELEVATION(S) MAY OR MAY NOT
BE SITED ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

PROVIDE HOUSE PLANS WHICH DEMONSTRATE AN
25 PTS. 13. ENHANCED LEVEL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS
APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR.

PROVIDE PREMIUM GRADE EXTERIOR MATERIALS
10 PTS. 14. AND FINISHES AS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN
ADVISOR.

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMON OPEN SPACE, SUCH
2 PTS. 15. THAT EACH ADDITIONAL 1% OF COMMON OPEN
SPACE EARNS 2 BONUS POINTS.

PROVIDE MAJOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
10 PTS./FEATURE 16. AMENITIES (E.G., TENNIS COURTS, POOL,
COMMUNITY MEETING ROOM).

PROVIDE MINOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES (E.G., BIKEPATH OR MULTI-USE TRAIL
WHICH PROVIDE AN INTERNAL LINKAGE WITHIN THE
5 PTS./FEATURE 17.
DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS A CONNECTION TO
SIMILAR FACILITIES LOCATED AT THE PERIMETER
OF THE SITE).




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

2. MULTI-FAMILY OPEN SPACE BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL OPTION, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE R-2, R-
3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN A ONE PERCENT
DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH TWO PERCENT OF COMMON OPEN
SPACE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

a. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SHALL
DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF COMMON OPEN SPACE AS
PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN SPACE
SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

1. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

2. VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

3. PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS BETWEEN OR
IN FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN GENERAL, AREAS
RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL
TENANTS.

4. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE EXTERIOR
BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

5. GOLF COURSES.

b. IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. IN ORDER TO OVERCOME A
DEMONSTRATED DEFICIENCY IN THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING FOR
PERSONS OF LOW INCOME, INCENTIVES ARE ESTABLISHED TO
FOSTER THE PROVISION OF SUCH HOUSING.

a. APPLICABILITY. ALL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN A
ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
608 PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 202.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

b. DENSITY BONUS.

(1) ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR EVERY
TWO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, PROVIDED THAT
THE OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED 10
PERCENT BEYOND THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE
ALLOWED.

(2) A DENSITY BONUS AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ANY DISTRICT
AND MAY BE IN ADDITION TO A DENSITY BONUS
EARNED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 608.H.1 or
608.H.2.

c. OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS
WITHIN A PROJECT SHALL BE AS APPROVED BY THE HOUSING
DEPARTMENT.

Section 608.I (Single-Family Infill Subdivisions)
I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the
development standards tables for each district:

1. Minimum lot dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site.

a. Density Bonus Points. Additional density may be granted by earning
density bonus points by providing site enhancements from the table
below, as follows:

(1) Single-family detached development in the R1-10 through R1-
6 districts (Sections 611 through 613) may earn increased
density of 0.1 du/ac for each ten density bonus points earned
when also using the planned residential development option,
up to the maximum density allowed by the district.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(2) Single-family detached development in the R-2 through R-4A
districts (Sections 614 through 619) may earn increased
density of 0.275 du/ac for each five density bonus points
earned when also using the planned residential development
option, up to the maximum density allowed by the district.
However, at least half of the bonus points used to achieve
densities in excess of 7.5 du/ac must be from the architectural
design bonus point category.


Bonus Points Enhancement Category
PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT
10 pts. 1. Increase common landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter street to 20' avg./15' minimum.

10 pts./feature 2. Provide a major entry feature with a minimum 1,500
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter
landscaping and right-of-way).

5 pts./feature 3. Provide a minor entry feature with a minimum 1,000
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter
landscaping and right-of-way).

STREETSCAPE

20 pts. 1. Provide detached sidewalks separated from the curb
by a minimum 5'-wide planting area. Planting area
shall be planted with minimum 24"-box size trees
planted at a rate of 1 per lot, turf or 5 5-gallon shrubs
for every tree and ground cover; and supplied with
an adequate irrigation system.

10 pts. 2. Provide landscaping and irrigation for all front yards
within the development which shall include a
minimum of 1 24"-box tree, 5 5-gallon shrubs, and
ground cover.

5 pts. 2a. Receive an additional 5 bonus points for each
additional tree (minimum 15-gallon).

10 pts. 3. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for
driveways and on-lot sidewalks. Partial treatment




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

shall consist of consistent accent treatment for all
like features, e.g. intersections, crosswalks, borders.

10 pts. 4. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private streets. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

10 pts. 5. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private sidewalks. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.,
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

2 pts./feature 6. Provide landscaped median islands.

5 pts. 7. Provide a comprehensive street furniture package
consisting of custom street signs, bus shelters and
benches.

5 pts. 8 Provide custom streetlight standards and/or fixtures.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

25 pts. 1. Provide a comprehensive streetscape plan,
development agreement or other means which shall
address visual interest at a pedestrian scale; rhythm,
form and massing; and relationship of units to each
other for the entire subdivision. Such plan shall
provide elevations, color options, and limit which
model(s)/elevation(s) may or may not be sited on
individual lots.

25 pts. 2. Provide house plans which demonstrate an
enhanced level of architectural design as approved
by the design advisor.

10 pts. 3. Provide premium grade exterior materials and
finishes as approved by the design advisor.

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

2 pts. 1. Provide additional common area, such that each
additional 1% of common area earns 2 bonus points.

10 pts./feature 2. Provide major private recreational amenities (e.g.,
tennis courts, pool, community meeting room).




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

5 pts./feature 3. Provide minor private recreational amenities (e.g.,
bikepath or multi-use trail which provide an internal
linkage within the development as well as a
connection to similar facilities located at the
perimeter of the site).


b. Additional Common Area/Open Space. Additional density may be
granted by providing additional common area above any minimum
requirements as follows:

(1) Qualifying developments (listed below) may earn:

(a) A one percent density bonus for each four percent of
basic common area; or

(b) A one percent density bonus for each two percent of
improved common area.

(c) The Planning and Development Department shall
determine the adequacy of both basic and improved
common areas as part of the development review
process. Open space shall not include:

(i) Public right-of-way.

(ii) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(iii) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in
front of units; or, in general, areas reserved for
the exclusive use of individual tenants.

(iv) Required setback areas at the exterior
boundaries of the site.

(v) Golf courses.

(d) In no case shall the density of the development exceed
the maximum density allowed by the district.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(2) Developments qualifying for the additional common area/open
space density bonus are as follows:

(a) Single-family development in the RE-35 and R1-18
zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610), when also
using the planned residential development option.

(b) Single-family attached development in the R1-10
through R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through
619), when using the planned residential development
option.

(c) Single-family development in the R-2 through R-4A
zoning districts (Sections 614 through 619), when using
the single-family infill development option.

(d) Multi-family development in the R1-10 through R-4A
zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619), when using
the planned residential development option.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2.

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed Development: The development options tables provided in
Sections 609 through 619 indicate the only types of residential development
permitted under each development option and associated development
regulations. The complete list of all permitted uses, including accessory and
temporary uses, is provided in Section 608.C.

9. Required review: Development review in accordance with Section 507 of
this ordinance, and subdivision review in accordance with chapter 32 of the
Phoenix City Code when new lots are created.

10. Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.




***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

I. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS.

1. APPLICABILITY. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL REGULATIONS OF THIS
SECTION SHALL APPLY TO SUBDIVISIONS MEETING ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

a. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT ZONED HP OR HP-L, NOR
DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORICAL PLACES.

b. THE SUBDIVISION IS ZONED R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1,
C-2, C-3, DTC, OR WU CODE;

c. THE SUBDIVISION EITHER UTILIZES THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION, OR THE DISTRICT
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT AN SFI SUBDIVISION MAY BE
DEVELOPED PER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;

d. THE SUBDIVISION IS EITHER LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN,
OR THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA
IDENTIFIED AS “APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS OBTAINED
USE PERMIT APPROVAL; AND

e. FOR EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS RECORDED PRIOR TO 2024
ONLY: THE PLAT HAS THE SUBTITLE “A SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED SUBDIVISION”; “A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISION”; “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION”; OR ANOTHER ANALOGOUS SUBTITLE AS
DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

FIGURE 608.I.1
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AREAS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

2. SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND REDEVELOPMENT
AREAS, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

3. SFI DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

a. THE FOLLOWING TABLE PROVIDES MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPED UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION:

TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISIONS

LOT WIDTH
(1) 20 FEET
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
(3) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(4) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MAXIMUM)

INDIVIDUAL LOT SETBACKS
(5) NONE
(MINIMUM)

GARAGE DOOR/CARPORT
(6) ENTRY SETBACK THREE FEET
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.c

PERIMETER STREET, FRONT: 10 FEET
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER PERIMETER STREET, SIDE: 15 FEET
(8) BUILDING SETBACKS
(MINIMUM) PERIMETER STREET, REAR: PER SECTION 608.I.4.d
OTHER PERIMETER: 10 FEET




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISIONS

10 FEET, REQUIRED TO BE
PERIMETER STREET
COMMUNITY/ASSOCIATION MAINTAINED. MAY BE
(9) LANDSCAPE SETBACKS
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) PER SECTION 608.I.3.b
(MAXIMUM)

LOT COVERAGE INDIVIDUAL LOTS: NO MAXIMUM
(11)
(MAXIMUM) OTHER PARCELS/TRACTS: 50%

COMMON OPEN SPACE
(12) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
(13) PER SECTION 608.I.7
REQUIREMENTS

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE
OTHER APPLICABLE
(14) DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507 TAB A
REGULATIONS:
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


b. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

(1) IN ALL DISTRICTS, THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT
MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE
INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED HEIGHT.

(2) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED R-5, THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED HEIGHT IS 48 FEET.

(3) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DTC, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
SHALL BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE
CHARACTER AREA.

(4) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED WU CODE, THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT SHALL BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE
TRANSECT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(5) IN ALL OTHER DISTRICTS, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT IS 40 FEET WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER, WITH A ONE-FOOT HEIGHT
INCREASE PERMITTED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE-
FOOT SETBACK TO A MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF
48 FEET.

c. ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT ARE APPLICABLE UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
SECTION.

4. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.

a. INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SHALL PROVIDE A FRONT ENTRY THAT IS EITHER ELEVATED,
DEPRESSED OR INCLUDES A FEATURE SUCH AS A LOW WALL
TO ACCENTUATE THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE. (R*)

b. REQUIRED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT FRONT ON OR BE
ACCESSED FROM A PERIMETER STREET. (R*)

c. FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL BE
NO WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK. (R*)

d. NO REAR PROPERTY LINE OF ANY LOT IN AN SFI SUBDIVISION
SHALL ABUT EITHER A PERIMETER STREET OR AN
ASSOCIATED PERIMETER STREET LANDSCAPE SETBACK
AREA. (R*)

e. ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW SHALL
NOT EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET WITHOUT HAVING
A MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN AREA. (R*)

5. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) FIFTY PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT THE
TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(2) TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES
SHALL BE MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(3) TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES
SHALL BE MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

b. A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL
BE PROVIDED. (T)

6. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI
DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THIS
SECTION.

a. A MINIMUM OF ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE PER
DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT AS
THE UNIT FOR WHICH IT IS PROVIDED.

b. COVERED PARKING SETBACKS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE
LARGER THAN THE BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR THE
DWELLING UNIT.

c. A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST PARKING
SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN
ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

7. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE LOCATED
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY. (T)

b. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM A PUBLIC STREET OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY IS PERMITTED. (T)

c. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS
PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM
PAVING STANDARDS FOR THE ALLEY. (T)

d. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS
PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1, WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) THE SFI SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ACROSS THE
ALLEY FROM EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HP ZONING
DISTRICT. (R)

(2) THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS
APPROVED MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM PAVING
STANDARDS FOR THE ALLEY. (T)

e. INDIVIDUAL LOTS MAY FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVE, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY
TO ALLOW FOR SUFFICIENT MANEUVERING AND PUBLIC
UTILITY ACCESS. (T)

8. WALLS/FENCES.

a. THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN
REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS IS 40 INCHES.
(R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

b. THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREAS IS 40 INCHES, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF REQUIRED POOL FENCES AND OTHER
NECESSARY VIEW FENCES, AS APPROVED BY PDD. (R*)

9. SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION
705, TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

Section 608.J (Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments)

J. Incentives for Affordable Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency
in the supply of housing for persons of low and moderate income, incentives are
established to foster the provision of such housing.

1. Applicability. All development located within a zoning district subject to the
provisions of Section 608 providing affordable housing as defined in Section
202.

2. Density Bonus.

a. One additional unit shall be allowed for every two affordable housing
units; provided, that the overall project density does not exceed ten
percent beyond that which would otherwise be allowed.

b. A density bonus awarded per this section shall apply to the maximum
density for any district and may be in addition to a density bonus
earned per the provisions of Section 608.I.2.

3. Other Requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing.

J. OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO ZONING
DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:

1. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

2. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE LOT
OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


3. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL BE
PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

a. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS
AND CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS
SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME.

b. THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST 40 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF A PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY.

c. NO OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT FEET
TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

4. EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE FEET.
THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST 15 FEET IN
WIDTH.

5. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD
TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE WITH
A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 150 CUBIC FEET.

6. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED SURFACES
SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS REQUIRED
UNDER SECTION 507.

7. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL
MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

8. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH EACH
OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND AMENITIES.

9. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A SCREENED
STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,
ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60
SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE FOR EACH OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL
BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE
PARKED IN THE STORAGE YARD.

10. EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL (1) BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR (2) HAVE SKIRTING AROUND
ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND UNDERCARRIAGE.

11. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION OR
RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

12. NOT MORE THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY ONE OFF-
SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DEVELOPED
OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

13. DEVELOPMENT OF OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES
SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

14. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME.

15. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
AREA OF THE OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT
DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON OPEN SPACE
LAND. COMMON OPEN SPACE LANDS SHALL BE CLEARLY
DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE CHARACTER OF USE AND
DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR BENEFIT OF
AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

b. DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS-
OF-WAY; NOR

c. VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR

d. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF
THE SITE; NOR

e. GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF OPEN SPACE LAND AREA RESULTING
FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS, EITHER BY
PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN
THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC, OR A
COMBINATION THEREOF.

***
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the
RE-35 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 150' width, 175' depth 100' width, 125' depth None
dimensions (width (Minimum area 35,000
and depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 1.10 1.10 1.15; 1.32 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None 40' front or rear, 20' 40' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to be in
common ownership unless
lots front on the perimeter
public street; 20' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 40' front, 40' rear, 20' 25' front, 50' total front 25' front
side and rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, plus an additional 30%, plus an additional
structures are less than 10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or
20' and 1 story in height attached shade attached shade structures.
then a maximum of structures. Total: 40%. Total: 40%.
40% lot coverage is
allowed.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed development Single-family detached Single-family attached; Single-family attached; plus
plus (a) (a)

Required review Subdivision to create 4 Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
or more lots building setbacks

Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway (1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.


TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 150 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 175 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS)
1.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 1.5 WITH BONUS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

FRONT: 25 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 40 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS REAR: 40 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) SIDES: 20 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 40 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 20 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 20 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
STREET WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM) SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

25%, EXCEPT IF ALL
STRUCTURES ARE LESS
THAN 20' AND 1 STORY IN
LOT COVERAGE
(11) HEIGHT THEN A MAXIMUM 40% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
OF 40% LOT COVERAGE IS
ALLOWED.


COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
OTHER CODE;
32, CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507 TAB
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used IN
THE R1-18 DISTRICT for each district. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Illustrations of Development Options


Table 610.A
R1-18 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' depth 90' width, 80' depth None
dimensions (width (Minimum area 18,000
and depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front or rear, 10' 20' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street; 15'
adjacent to property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 30' rear, 10' 25' front, 50' total front 25' front
side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 30%, plus an additional 30%, plus an additional 30%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade attached shade attached shade structures
structures structures
Total: 40%
Total: 40% Total: 40%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 610.A
R1-18 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Allowed development Single-family detached Single-family attached; Single-family attached; plus
plus (a) (a)

Required review Subdivision to create 4 Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
or more lots building setbacks

Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway (1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.


TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 130 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 120 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
2.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 2.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS REAR: 30 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE WHERE
STREET LOTS FRONT ON PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

30%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 40% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 40%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***


B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R1-10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.



Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except None, except
110' adjacent to freeway or 110' adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial


Dwelling 3.0 3.5; 4.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2)(front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); landscape setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2) (Does not apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths,
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50% plus an additional 10% for 50% plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision to Section 507, and subdivision to
create 4 or more lots create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)


Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to 30
feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the
development standards of Table 611.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards
Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot dimensions 80' width, 94' depth 60' width, 65' depth None
(width and depth)
(Minimum area
10,000 sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 3.50 3.50 3.68; 4.20 with bonus
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards None 30' front, 25' rear, 20' adjacent to a public
10' side street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street; 15'
adjacent to property line


Building setbacks 25' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front 10' front
and 3' side plus rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories


Lot coverage 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional
additional 10% for an additional 10% for 10% for an ADU and/or
ADU and/or attached an ADU and/or attached shade structures.
shade structures. attached shade
structures. Total: 60%
Total: 60%




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards
Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Total: 60%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family Single-family Multi-family plus (b)
detached(3) and attached; plus (a)
duplex


Required review Subdivision to create Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
4 or more lots building setbacks


Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 80 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
4.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 4.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
STREET WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District

***


B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R1-8 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.



Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 4.0 4.5; 5.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story); Property line
(side): 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2) (Does not apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus additional 10% for an 50%, plus additional 10% for an
ADU and/or attached shade ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the
development standards of Table 612.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)



(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot dimensions 70' width, 94' depth 50' width, 65' depth None
(width and depth)
(Minimum area 8,000
sq. ft.)


Dwelling 4.30 4.30 4.52; 5.16 with bonus
unit density (units/gross
acre)


Perimeter standards None 25' front or rear 10' side 20' adjacent to a public
street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line


Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front plus 10' front
and 3' side rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to
48' high and 4 stories

50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional 50%, plus an additional
Lot coverage
additional 10% for 10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or
an ADU and/or attached shade attached shade structures
attached shade structures
Total: 60%
structures
Total: 60%
Total: 60%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)



(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Allowed development Single- Single-family attached; Multi-family plus (b)
family detached(3) an plus (a)
d duplex


Required review Subdivision to create Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
4 or more lots building setbacks


Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 70 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
5.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 5.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE WHERE
STREET LOTS FRONT ON PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District

***


B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R1-6 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 5.5; 6.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum(Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 613.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


Planned Residential
Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot 60' width, 94' depth 40' width, 60' depth None
dimensions (width and (Minimum area 6,000
depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 5.30 5.30 5.54; 6.34 with bonus
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards None 25' front or rear 10' 20' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to be in
common ownership unless
lots front on the perimeter
public street; 15' adjacent
to property line


Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front 10' front
and 3' side plus rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or additional 10% for an 10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade ADU and/or attached attached shade structures
structures shade structures
Total: 60%
Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


Planned Residential
Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Allowed development Single-family Single-family Multi-family plus (b)
detached(3) and duplex attached plus (a)


Required review Subdivision to create 4 Subdivision with Development review per
or more lots building setbacks Section 507


Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
6.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 6.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
STREET WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 614. R-2 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-2 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 614.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.


Dwelling unit 10.50; 12.00 with 10.50; 12.00 with
density 10.0 10.0 bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)


10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street(2);
rights-of-way; 15'
this area is to be
for units siding
in common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 25' front or rear ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street; 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line


20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none


3 stories or 40' for
2 stories and 30'
first 150'; 1' in 1'
for first 150'; 1' in
Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' increase to 48'
5' increase to 48'
height, 4-story
high and 4 stories
maximum(5)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
structures
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area


Single-family
attached and
Single-family single-family
Allowed Single-family Multi-family plus
detached(3) and detached (per the
development attached plus (a) (b)
duplex provisions of
Section 608.F.6
only)


Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
10.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 10.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
12.0 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 10.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 10.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 12.0 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT 18 FEET FRONT OR STREET
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS. SIDE
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.



Section 615. R-3 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 615. R-3 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

***
A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-3 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 615.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
15.23; 17.40 with 15.23; 17.40 with
density 14.5 14.5
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

25' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

2 stories and 30' 3 stories or 40' for
for first 150'; 1' in first 150'; 1' in 1'
Maximum height 2 stories and 30'(5) 2 stories and 30'(5) 5' increase to 48' increase to 48'
height, 4-story height, 4-story
maximum(5) maximum(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per the
development
attached and attached and attached and provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
15.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 14.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
17.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 15.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 14.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 17.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.

Section 616. R-3A Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Section 616. R-3A Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 616.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
23.1; 26.4 with 23.1; 26.4 with
density 22 22
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

25' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

3 stories or 40' for 3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in 1'
Maximum height 3 stories or 40'(5) 3 stories or 40'(5) increase to 48' increase to 48'
height, 4-story height, 4-story
maximum(5) maximum(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per the
development
attached and attached and attached and provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
23.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 22.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
26.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 23.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 22.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 26.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.



Section 617. R-4 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 617. R-4 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-4 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 617.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
30.45; 34.80 with 30.45; 34.80 with
density 29.0 29.0
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

20' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

3 stories or 40' for 3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in 1'
Maximum height 3 stories or 40'(5) 3 stories or 40'(5) increase to 48' increase to 48'
height, 4-story height, 4-story
maximum(5) maximum(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per the
development
attached and attached and attached and provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
30.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 29.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
35.0 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 30.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 29.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 35.0 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 3 STORIES AND 40 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.



Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District—Restricted Commercial

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations—Residential Uses. The following tables establishES
standards to be used in the R-5 district. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option
must meet Section 608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608,
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 618.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
45.68;52.20 with 45.68;52.20 with
density 43.5 43.5
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

20' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

Maximum height 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
attached and
Single-family Single-family Single-family
single-family
Allowed detached, single- detached, single- detached, single-
detached (per the
development family attached family attached family attached
provisions of
and multi-family and multi-family and multi-family
Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
45.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 43.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
52.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 45.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 43.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 52.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 4 STORIES AND 48 FEET** 4 STORIES AND 48 FEET**
(MAXIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.


***


Section 619. R-4A Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 619 (Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—
General) to read as follows:

Section 619. Residential R-4A District—Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence—
General

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

A. Permitted Uses. Primary uses and accessory uses are permitted as indicated in
the Residential Districts Land Use Matrix, Section 608.D, plus the following:

1. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

2. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

3. Single-family infill developments, per the provisions of Section 608.F.6 and
Table 617.B, R-4 Development Options, column D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the
following yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***

8. Single-family infill development must comply with all regulations applicable to
SFI development in the R-4 district except for density, which shall be
permitted per Section 619.B.1.

9. Off-site manufactured home developments, upon obtaining use permit
approval, shall comply with the R-4 standards for planned residential
developments (Table 617.B, column C) except for density, which shall be
permitted per Section 619.B.1.

***


Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail
Amend Chapter 6, Section 622 (Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail) to
read as follows:

Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

A. Purpose. The C-1, Commercial Neighborhood Retail District, is a district of light
neighborhood type retail and customer service uses designed to be compatible
with each other and nearby residential districts.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Section, the
following restrictions shall apply to this district:

1. All commercial uses are restricted to closed buildingS except parking lots
and liquid fuel pump services.

***

10. The sale of used merchandise in connection with the following permitted
uses when such used merchandise uses a floorspace having a total area of
no more than five (5) percent of the gross floor area of the establishment:

***

g. Audio and video rentals and retail sales.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE R-5 DISTRICT.

3. ADULT DAY CARE HOME AND CENTER

4. BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

5. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

6. GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


7. NURSING HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5 DISTRICT and R-
4A; and in addition the following:

***

2. RESERVED. Adult Day Care Home and Center

***

19. RESERVED. Boarding House, subject to a use permit

***

38. RESERVED. Community Residence Center, subject to a use permit

***

76. RESERVED. Group Home, subject to a use permit

***

120. RESERVED. Nursing Home, subject to a use permit

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.J, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial
Amend Chapter 6, Section 623 (Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial)
to read as follows:

Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-2, Commercial Intermediate District, is a district of commercial
uses of medium intensity designed to be compatible with each other and to provide
for a wide range of types of commercial activity within the district.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.

1. Except as otherwise provided, all permitted uses and storaging of materials
or supplies shall be conducted entirely within a closed building.

2. The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted
uses set forth in Section 623.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained
and subject to the following standards for the outdoor display area:

a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere
along the building except as noted in Section 623.CB.2.b;

***

9. With the exception of those instances listed above in 623.CB.7. and CB.8.,
no other types of vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or
displayed for sale on-site except by a registered vehicle retail sales
dealership and upon obtaining a special permit pursuant to Section 647.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-1 DISTRICT.

3. BOARDING HOUSE

4. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER

5. GROUP HOME

6. NURSING HOME

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5, R-4A, and C-1
districts; and in addition the following:

***

50. RESERVED. Community Residence Center.

***

126. RESERVED. Nursing Home.

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.J, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial
Amend Chapter 6, Section 624 (Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial) to
read as follows:

Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-3 Commercial General District, is a district designed to provide for
the intensive commercial uses necessary to the proper development of the
community.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.

1. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from adjacent
residential districts. No noise, odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it
exceeds the general level of noise, odor or vibration emitted by uses outside
the site. Such comparison shall be made at the boundary of the site.

2. The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted
uses set forth in Section 624.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained
and subject to the following standards for the outdoor display area:

a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere
along the building except as noted in Section 624.CB.2.b;

***

4. With the exception of those instances listed above in 624.CB.3., no other
types of vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or displayed
for sale on-site except by a registered vehicle retail sales dealership.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT.

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1 and THE C-2
districts; and in addition the following, including the storage of all raw materials and
finished products in connection herewith:

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Neither the Zoning Administrator nor the Board of Adjustment shall
have jurisdiction to vary the provisions of Section 624.E.1.OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION 608.J,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

e. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

***

Section 632. Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High
Density District) to strike everything, and replace with the following text:

SECTION 632. MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ESTABLISH
ZONING REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 9-
462.13, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS FOLLOWS:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. ENTITLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MIDDLE HOUSING OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO HAVE UP TO FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS PER
LOT.

2. PROVIDE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR MIDDLE
HOUSING.

B. APPLICABILITY.

1. THE MH OVERLAY MAY BE COMBINED WITH ANY ZONING DISTRICT
WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 632.C.

2. IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH OVERLAY CONFLICT WITH OTHER
ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, THE MH
OVERLAY PROVISIONS SHALL PREVAIL, UNLESS OTHERWISE
STATED IN THIS SECTION.

C. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL BE
APPLIED TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. A PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN REZONED WITH THE MH OVERLAY
DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506; OR

2. LOTS IN A SUBDIVISION HAVING A PLAT RECORDED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2026, WHICH MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL
CRITERIA:

a. THE SUBDIVISION IS CONTIGUOUS AND A MINIMUM 10 GROSS
ACRES IN SIZE.

b. THE SUBDIVISION HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF A PRIOR
SUBDIVISION WHICH HAS APPLIED THE MIDDLE HOUSING
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9-462.13, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES.

c. THE SUBDIVISION HAS BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-
1, C-2, OR C-3.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


d. FOR C-1, C-2, AND C-3 PROPERTIES ONLY: THE SUBDIVISION
IS PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION AS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I.

e. THE NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED FOR APPLICATION OF THE
MH OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. FOR
SUBDIVISIONS OF FEWER THAN FIVE LOTS, ONE LOT SHALL
BE PERMITTED TO HAVE THE MH OVERLAY.

f. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF: PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT; PHOENIX DEER VALLEY AIRPORT; AND
SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT; EACH OF WHICH IS A FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION COMMERCIALLY LICENSED
AIRPORT OR A GENERAL AVIATION OR PUBLIC AIRPORT AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8486, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.

g. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF A MILITARY AIRPORT OR ANCILLARY MILITARY
FACILITY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8461, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES.

h. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ON TRIBAL LAND.

I. THE SUBDIVISION OWNER HAS REQUESTED THE CITY TO
ASSIGN THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION
THROUGH THE OPT-IN PROCEDURES PROVIDED IN THIS
SECTION.

D. OPT-IN PROCEDURE. PRIOR TO UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT, SUBDIVISIONS ELIGIBLE PER SECTION 632.C.2 MUST
REQUEST THAT THE CITY APPLY THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE LOTS
ON WHICH MIDDLE HOUSING SHALL BE PERMITTED, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE SUBDIVISION OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC
AN OPT-IN FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


2. CONCURRENT WITH THE OPT-IN FORM, THE SUBDIVISION OWNER
SHALL SUBMIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOTS ON WHICH THE
MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL BE APPLIED.

3. CITY STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE OPT-IN FORM AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. WHEN THE REQUEST IS CONFIRMED TO BE
ELIGIBLE, STAFF SHALL PROCESS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO APPLY THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE ELIGIBLE SUBDIVISION LOTS.

4. ONCE THE ZONING MAP CHANGE IS COMPLETED, THE LOTS SHALL
BE OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT UNTIL SUCH
TIME THAT THEY MAY BE REZONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
506.

E. MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING
MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLY ONLY WHEN THE MH
DISTRICT IS COMBINED WITH THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, RE-35, R1-18, R1-10,
R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, OR C-3 ZONING
DISTRICTS. FOR ALL OTHER PROPERTIES, THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE BASE DISTRICT APPLY.

1. PERMITTED USES.

a. ALL USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONING
DISTRICTS, PLUS

b. MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

2. DENSITY. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS
(PDU) PROVIDED ON A LOT ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT
SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING,
OR FOUR PDUS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

a. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SUBDIVIDED LOTS PER ACRE IS
THE SAME AS ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING AND IS NOT
MODIFIED BY THIS SECTION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

b. FOR THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION,
DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.H.1.

3. SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM
HEIGHT(S) SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
UNIT ON THE SAME PROPERTY, INCLUDING THOSE FOR PERMITTED
PROJECTIONS.

4. LOT COVERAGE. LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR THE
BASE DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

a. LOTS WITH BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-35, RE-24, OR R1-14.
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE
INCREASED TO 50% WHEN ALL STRUCTURES ON THE LOT ARE
ONE-STORY AND A MAXIMUM 20 FEET IN HEIGHT.

5. PARKING AND MANEUVERING.

a. ON LOTS HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY DWELLING
UNIT, A MINIMUM OF TWO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE
PROVIDED ONSITE.

b. ON LOTS HAVING TWO OR MORE PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS,
A MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED
ONSITE PER PDU.

c. MANEUVERING WITHIN A PUBLIC ALLEY SHALL BE ALLOWED
WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) THE ALLEY IS A MINIMUM 16 FEET WIDE FOR THE
LENGTH OF THE BLOCK;

(2) THE ALLEY IS PAVED TO THE TWO NEAREST EXISTING
CROSS STREETS, TO THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY
THE CITY FOR A LOCAL STREET; AND




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(3) A MINIMUM OF 24 FEET MANEUVERING AREA IS
PROVIDED THAT IS A COMBINATION OF THE ALLEY
PAVING AND ONSITE PAVING, OR AS OTHERWISE
APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL APPEAL.

6. DESIGN REVIEW.

a. HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP). DESIGN REVIEW FOR HP-
ZONED OR HP-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SHALL BE AS
REQUIRED PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8, WITH NO
MODIFICATIONS BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

b. ALL LOTS NOT ZONED HP OR DESIGNATED HP, REGARDLESS
OF LOT WIDTH, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 507 TAB A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW.

***

Section 701. Bulk Regulations
Amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to read as follows:

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.

a. STANDARD OPTION. The following provisions apply to development
in Sections 604 through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision
option of Sections 609 through 618 IN THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
AND R-4A DISTRICTS, AND IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8,
R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN
DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD
DEVELOPMENT OPTION:

(1) Open projections.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(a) In any district, an awning, open porch, open carport, or
open balcony may project into any required front yard
not more than five feet.
FRONT YARD. AN ATTACHED CARPORT, AWNING,
PORCH/FRONT ENTRY, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP
TO FIVE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.

(b) An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony
may project into any side yard other than the side yard
on the street side of a corner lot, if it does not come
nearest to the side lot line than three feet.
SIDE YARDS. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO ANY INTERIOR (NOT STREET) SIDE
YARD, PROVIDED THAT IT IS NO CLOSER THAN
THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

(i) For any lot wherein a ten-foot or greater side
yard is required, no such projection shall be
within an area ten feet wide and ten feet high,
measured from finished grade, lying within that
side yard.

(ii) No more than one such clear area, as stipulated
in i. above, need be maintained on a lot.

(c) An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony
may project into a rear yard, provided it does not come
nearer to a common rear lot line than three feet. Where
a rear alley exists this projection may extend to the rear
lot line or to within eight or ten feet of what would be the
centerline of a full sixteen- or twenty-foot-wide alley
where only a one-half or partial alley exists.
REAR YARD. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO THE REAR YARD, PROVIDED THAT
IT IS NO CLOSER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


(i) WHERE A FULLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS,
THIS PROJECTION MAY EXTEND TO THE
PROPERTY LINE; OR WHERE ONLY A
PARTIALLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS, TO
WITHIN EIGHT OR TEN FEET OF WHAT
WOULD BE THE CENTERLINE OF A FULL 16-
OR 20-FOOT-WIDE ALLEY.

(d) Open fire balconies, and OPEN fire escape stairs
PROVIDED FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY may
project not more than five feet over INTO any required
yard provided they come no closer than two feet from a
property line.

(e) Awnings, cornices, CANTILEVERED roof overhangs,
and eaves may project more than three feet over INTO
any required yard providing they come no closer than
two feet from a property line.

(f) Sills, leaders, belt courses, and similar ornamental
features may project not more than six inches over
INTO any required yard.

(g) An entrance awning may project into any required yard
in an R-5 or less restricted district.

(2) Closed Projections.

(a) A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule, ten feet or
less in width, may project not more than three feet into
any REQUIRED front or rear yard.

(b) A chimney may project not more than three feet into any
required yard, if it THE CHIMNEY is not more than six
feet long measured in a direction parallel to the nearest
property line AND so long as it is not closer than two
feet from a property line.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(c) The main building in a residence district may project five
feet into the required front yard for no more than one-
half of the maximum width of the structure.

(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear or side yard, subject
to the following:

(i) The projection is no closer to a side property line
than five feet;

(ii) The projection is no closer to a rear property line
than three feet; and

(iii) The projection does not exceed 15 feet in height,
unless greater height is permitted by obtaining a
use permit per Section 307.

b. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND PLANNED
AREA DEVELOPMENTS. The following provisionS applies APPLY
to development in the average lot and RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8,
R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN
DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE Planned Residential
Development options of Sections 609 through 618, AND
SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED AS PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENTS PER SECTION 635:

(1) There shall be no projections into the required front or rear
yard or required perimeter setbacks except:

(a) A roof overhang may project not more than three feet
into either of these yard AREAS; and




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(b) An attached awning, open porch, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY or other similar shade
structure may project not more than ten feet into the
required rear yard PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACK
provided that the structure shall neither cover more than
two hundred 200 square feet nor come closer than three
feet to a side or rear property line.

(c) A CLOSED PROJECTION (WHICH MAY INCLUDE AN
ATTACHED ADU) MAY PROJECT INTO THE
REQUIRED PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(I) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

(II) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

(III) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.

(2) A roof overhang may project no more than three feet into a
required street side yard setback.

c. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS. The following
provisions apply to single-family attached residential development:
SFI SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 608.I:

(1) Open Projections.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(a) An awning, open porch, or open balcony may project
into any required setback not more than five feet.
AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP
TO FIVE FEET INTO ANY REQUIRED YARD THAT IS
NOT A REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

(b) Where an FULLY-DEDICATED alley exists, an
ATTACHED awning, open porch, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, or open balcony may extend to the
property line.

(2) Closed Projections. A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule,
ten feet in width or less, may project not more than three feet
into any required building setback YARD THAT IS NOT A
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

***

Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) to read as follows:

***

B. Site and Parking Space Design Standards.

***

2. Space and aisle dimensions. Dimensions for maneuvering aisles and for
different types of parking spaces shall be as follows:

***

b. Surface parking:

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(5) The combined depth of the parking space and the aisle width
shall equal sixty-two (62) feet for a double loaded aisle and
forty-three (43) feet for a single loaded aisle.
FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HAVING NO MORE THAN
FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS, THE MINIMUM DRIVE
AISLE WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED TO 10 FEET FOR TWO-
WAY TRAFFIC WHERE IT DOES NOT ALSO FUNCTION AS
REQUIRED MANEUVERING FOR AN ADJACENT PARKING
SPACE, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

***

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements

*** ***

1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
A minimum of 50% Of the required parking
Dwelling Unit, Multi-family spaces, A MINIMUM OF 0.25 SPACES PER
DWELLING UNIT must be provided as
unreserved spaces WHEN THE LOT HAS FIVE
OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

Per Section 608.F.6, if developing under the
single-family infill development option per
Sections 614 through 618.
2 spaces per PRIMARY DWELLING unit if not
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Attached developing under the SFI option. The required
spaces for each dwelling unit must be provided on
the same lot. An additional 0.25 unreserved
spaceS per dwelling unit must be provided
elsewhere within the development for visitor
parking.

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Detached 2 spaces per 1 PRIMARY dwelling unit




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Type of Land Use Parking Requirements

*** ***



***

F. Special Parking Standards.

1. Residential DISTRICTS lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family residential uses may
SHALL not be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single-family residential uses
may be located in the required front yard. However, all parking and
maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall not exceed 50
percent of the area of the required front yard, except that a driveway
shall not be required to be less than 18 feet in width unless otherwise
stipulated by Historic Preservation.
NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD
SHALL BE USED FOR DRIVEWAYS, MANEUVERING AREAS, AND
NON-REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. HP-ZONED LOTS MAY BE
STIPULATED TO MAXIMUM PAVING THAT IS LESS THAN 50
PERCENT AS A PART OF THE HP APPROVAL PROCESS SET
FORTH IN CHAPTER 8.

c. Buses shall not be parked in the front yard of any residential district.
A bus is any commercially licensed motor vehicle designed for
carrying more than fifteen (15) 15 passengers and used for the
transportation of persons as well as any motor vehicle, other than a
taxicab, designed for the transportation of persons for compensation.

d. Mobile homes shall not be parked in any residential district except as
provided in Section 647.A.2.1 608.J.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Section 703. Landscaping, Fences, and Walls
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences, and Walls) to read as follows:

***

B. Landscaping and Open Areas SPACE in Multiple-Family Development.

1. Purpose. Multiple-family dwellings UNITS can play a desired role by
providing desired forms of housing in appropriately zoned locations.
However, because the density of dwellings is greater than alternate forms of
housing, there is a relatively greater need to ensure an appropriate
residential setting, including both landscape amenities and adequate
outdoor open areas. Although it is recognized that many multiple-family
projects will wish to provide these in greater amounts, this section
establishes minimum standards for these features. These standards also
recognize both limitations in water availability as well as legitimate needs to
use landscaping for shade, cooling, and visual relief. To these purposes,
these standards distinguish between landscaped areas oriented to public
street and the exterior of projects from that more internally oriented and for
the use of residents. They provide for landscaping at the perimeter and in
front yards to include waterless features and drought resistant plant
materials. Higher water use landscaping is to be restricted to interior areas
devoted to resident use.

2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time
of initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with five or more dwelling units.
PROPERTIES WITH FOUR OR FEWER DWELLING UNITS SHOULD
REFER TO SECTION 507 TAB A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN
REVIEW.

***

Section 710. Hillside Development
Amend Chapter 7, Section 710 (Hillside Development) to read as follows:

***

B. Applicability.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

2. Development of land in any zoning district within a hillside development area
shall also be regulated by the provisions of THIS section, 32-32 of the
Phoenix City Code, whether subdivided or not, and shall be subject to the
following special conditions:

a. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL BE APPLIED IN
PLACE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE BASE
ZONING DISTRICT OF A PROPERTY AS SET FORTH IN THIS
SECTION, AND SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED BY A ZONING
OVERLAY.

b. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO REGULATED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32-32 OF THE PHOENIX CITY CODE,
WHETHER SUBDIVIDED OR NOT.

***

C. Standards.

***

2. Hillside development area standards. Special yard, height, area, and
coverage requirements for developments in the hillside areas in any zoning
district shall be as follows:

Table 1




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


18,000 square As required by as required by As required by
feet* zoning district zoning district zoning district

*Lot areas of
more than
eighteen
thousand
(18,000) square
feet may be
required in order
to provide a
suitable building
MINIMUM LOT
site meeting the
AREA grading
standards of
Section 32-32 of
the Phoenix City
Code.

In no case shall
residential lots
contain an area
less than the
minimum area
required by the
zoning district in




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


which such lots
are located.


MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS


120* As required by As required by As required by
zoning district zoning district zoning district
120'*
• WIDTH
*Unless in
• DEPTH conformance with
Section 32-32(M)
of the City Code


REQUIRED SETBACKS


As required by As required by Minimum 30'* As required by
• FRONT YARD zoning district zoning district zoning district or
minimum 30'*


As required by As required by Minimum 30'* Minimum 30'*
• REAR YARD
zoning district zoning district


• SIDE YARDS As required by As required by Minimum Minimum 15'*,
zoning district or zoning district or 15'**Building whichever is




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


ten (10) feet, ten (10) feet, heights greater greater*Building
whichever is whichever is than fifteen (15) heights greater
greater greater feet: required than fifteen (15)
yard plus one (1) feet: required
additional foot for yard plus one (1)
each foot of additional foot for
building height each foot of
exceeding 15' building height
measured from exceeding 15'
exterior measured from
boundaries exterior
boundaries


The main building The main The main The main building
and all accessory building and all building and all and all accessory
buildings shall accessory accessory buildings shall not
not occupy more buildings shall buildings shall occupy more than
than twenty-five not occupy more not occupy more twenty-five
MAXIMUM
percent (25%) of than twenty-five than twenty-five percent (25%) of
COVERAGE
the hillside percent (25%) of percent (25%) of the hillside
UNDER ROOF
portion of the lot the hillside the hillside portion of the lot
or parcel portion of the lot portion of the lot or parcel or as
or parcel or parcel required by
zoning district,
whichever is less




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


No building shall No building shall No building shall No building shall
exceed a height exceed a height exceed a height exceed a height
of two (2) stories, of two (2) stories, of two (2) stories, of two (2) stories,
not to exceed not to exceed not to exceed not to exceed
MAXIMUM
thirty (30) feet thirty (30) feet thirty (30) feet thirty (30) feet
BUILDING
above the natural above the natural above the natural above the natural
HEIGHT
grade of the lot or grade of the lot or grade of the lot grade of the lot or
parcel at any parcel at any or parcel at any parcel at any
section through section through section through section through
the structure the structure the structure the structure




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD: 18,000
SQUARE FEET, OR
AS REQUIRED BY
THE ZONING
NET LOT AREA DISTRICT, SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(1)
(MINIMUM) WHICHEVER IS ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
GREATER
PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT

STANDARD: 120
LOT WIDTH (1) FEET SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(2)
(MINIMUM) PRD: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
ZONING DISTRICT

STANDARD: 120
LOT DEPTH (1) FEET SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(3)
(MINIMUM) PRD: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
ZONING DISTRICT

DEVELOPMENT
(4) DENSITY AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
(5) LOTS AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1
(MAXIMUM)

30 FEET, OR AS
FRONT YARD REQUIRED BY BASE
SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(6) SETBACK ZONING DISTRICT,
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM) WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

30 FEET, OR AS
REAR YARD REQUIRED BY BASE
SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(7) SETBACK ZONING DISTRICT,
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM) WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.

STANDARD: 10 FEET STANDARD: 10 FEET
OR AS REQUIRED BY OR AS REQUIRED BY
BASE ZONING BASE ZONING 15 FEET, OR AS
SIDE YARD DISTRICT, DISTRICT, REQUIRED BY BASE
(8) SETBACK WHICHEVER IS WHICHEVER IS ZONING DISTRICT,
(MINIMUM) GREATER. GREATER. WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.
PRD: SAME AS BASE PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT

PER SECTION PER SECTION
(9) PROJECTIONS NOT PERMITTED
701.A.3 701.A.3

PERIMETER
(10) SETBACKS SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET WHEN WITHIN 10 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED
DISTRICT BOUNDARY, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE
BUILDING
FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
(11) HEIGHT
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET, AS
(MAXIMUM)
MEASURED FROM THE NATURAL GRADE OF THE PROPERTY AT ANY
SECTION THROUGH THE STRUCTURE.

FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS EQUAL
TO OR GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT: 25 PERCENT, OR AS
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED BY THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
(12)
(MAXIMUM)
FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS LESS
THAN 10 PERCENT: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

COMMON OPEN
(13) SPACE SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

STREET
FRONTAGE
(14) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
REQUIREMENT
(2)



HILLSIDE: SECTION
32-32, CITY CODE.
HILLSIDE: SECTION HILLSIDE: SECTION
OTHER 32-32, CITY CODE. DESIGN REVIEW: 32-32, CITY CODE.
(15) APPLICABLE SECTION 507 TAB A.
REGULATIONS: DESIGN REVIEW: DESIGN REVIEW:
SECTION 507 TAB A. MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 507 TAB A.
SECTION 703.B



(1) MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED WHEN APPROVED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION 32-32.C.3.M,
REGARDING PANHANDLE, DOUBLE FRONTAGE, AND OTHER UNORTHODOX LOTS.

(2) STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED WHEN
APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION 32-
32.C.3.N, REGARDING HILLSIDE STREET AND PAVING STANDARDS.

***

Section 1203. Land Use Matrix (Downtown Code)
Amend Section 1203. Land Use Matrix (Downtown Code) to read as follows:

***

Section 1203. Land Use Matrix

***



Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


C. Land Use Matrix.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS




BioMed Van Buren Warehouse
ACTIVE USE Business Core Central Park East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor



RESIDENTIAL USES
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling Unit, Single- np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Family, Detached
(Including Duplex and
Triplex Uses)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




***

D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with
conditions (pc) OR USE PERMIT (up) as indicated with a number that corresponds
with the Land Use Matrix in Section 1203.C:

***
27. Single-Family Infill (SFI) subdivision, per Sections 608.F.6 and 614, Table
614.B SECTION 608.I, except as modified below:

***

e. Frontage requirements: as per the applicable character area; or if lots
front on a something other than a frontage zone, per the regulations
of Sections 608.F.6 and 614, Table B, Column D SECTION 608.I.

***

g. Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home
occupations per Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter
street (not an alley) may have additional uses as permitted per the
applicable character area. Single-family detached units are permitted
for no more than 20 percent of the units in an SFI development to
allow for variety and efficiency of design.

***

Section 1205. Frontage Elements (Downtown Code)
Amend Section 1205. Frontage Elements (Downtown Code) to read as follows:

***

A. Active Front Yard (AFY). An active front yard is a frontage element intended for use
on blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex
style residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses
which are nonresidential, or on residential lots with more than two FOUR
PRIMARY dwelling units (not including ADUs). (R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and
improvements in the frontage zone shall be constructed as approved by
Historic Preservation.

2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be
installed in conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit
Design Standards) II.C.9 (RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW). If any of
the requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 conflict with provisions
of the Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 requirements shall
prevail.

***

Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards (WU Code)
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1303 (Transect Lot Standards) to read as follows:

***

Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter,
including frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting
public streets, private accessways, and private driveways, with the following
caveats:

a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family Infill
development option SUBDIVISION standards per Section 608.F.6
and Table 614.B, column D (except for the density, which is not
restricted) 608.I if it meets all three of the following conditions:

(1) The development SUBDIVISION consists solely of single-
family dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the
single-family infill development option or the infill development
district as depicted on the map provided in Section 608.F.6;
and
THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL
PLAN OR IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS
OBTAINED USE PERMIT APPROVAL; AND

(3) The development SUBDIVISION is located in any transect
other than T3.

b. All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance (Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the
Subdivision Committee to further the goals of the Walkable Urban
Code.

2. All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the
same setback and stepback standards as the single-family infill
development option (Table 614.B, column D); with additional requirements
as follows: BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STEPBACK AND
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN
FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT
MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT. THIS stepback provision shall not exceedREQUIRE
GREATER THAN A maximum 75-foot setback from rear and side
property lines for building height before THE maximum height IS
allowed.

***


Section 1306. Land Use Matrix
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1306 (Land Use Matrix) to read as follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix

***

B. Use Regulations.

***

Table 1306.1 Land Use Matrix




CATEGORY: T3 T4 T5:2 T5:3 T5:5 T5:6 T5:7 T6:7 T6:22
RESIDENTIAL USES T6:15 T6:
HWR

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Detached P P NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
(Including Duplex and Triplex Uses)

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Attached P P P P P P P P P

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL NP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
SUBDIVISION

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***


***

C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.

***

4. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION
1303.A.1.a.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking and loading standards) to read as
follows:

***

Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.

***

B. Required Vehicular Parking.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking


T5 T5

USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6 MEASURE
Stories Stories

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Per Section 608.F.6 608.I, if developing under the
Residential, Single-Family
Per unit provisions of Section 1303.A.1.a; otherwise per Section
Attached
702.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***


***




Exhibit B: Sketch Map


w
v

Thomas Rd

G
ra
nd Transit Overlay
Av District (TOD-1)
e Coronado
Neighborhood
SPD

Mcdowell Rd
Story Roosevelt
§
¨
¦
10 Neighborhood Neighborhood
SPD SPD
Arts Culture and
Small Business
v
w

Overlay
w
v


Transit Transit Overlay
Van Buren St Overlay
Capitol District
District (TOD-1) (TOD-2)
Mall Overlay
Jefferson St District



§
¨
¦
Central City
South Interim
Overlay District
East Buckeye
Road Overlay
District
Buckeye Rd



27th Ave 23rd Ave 19th Ave 7th Ave Central Ave 16th St 24th St
Airport
7th St Noise Impact
Zone Overlay

Rio Salado
Interim Overlay University Dr
Lower Buckeye Rd
District




¯ Miles
Z-3-25-4-7-8 GRAND CANAL
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

THOMAS RD

0 0.35 0.7 1.4 MC DOWELL RD ENCANTO
I-10 CENTRAL CITY

CENTRAL CITY / ENCANTO VILLAGE VAN BUREN ST
BUCKEYE RD
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4, 7, 8
I-17
LOWER BUCKEYE RD

40TH ST
7TH AVE
16TH ST 24TH ST
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH ST


REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
FROM: Various (4467.45 ac.)
DATE:
8/13/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-3-25-4-7-8 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.

Various with Middle Housing Overlay District
AERIAL PHOTO & TO:
ZONING MAP

4467.45 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 7-26 - QS 7-28 QS 12-24 - QS 12-31 E-7, E-8, F-7, F-8,
QS 8-24 - QS 8-27 QS 13-24 - QS 13-31
( 4467.45 ac.)
QS 9-24 - QS 9-27
QS 10-24 - QS 10-31
QS 11-24 - QS 11-31
QS 14-24 - QS 14-30
QS 15-25 - QS 15-29 F-9, G-7, G-8, G-9
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 772
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-3-25-4-7-8.aprx
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting September 29, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of
related state requirements related to Middle Housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and
were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state
legislation, details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the
Middle Housing Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a
summary of the timeline for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Blackman asked for clarification about the applicability area.
Mr. Grande provided additional information about the mechanism for applying the
overlay to new subdivisions of 10 acres or more.

Committee Member Strem asked about how compatibility of new buildings is
determined. Mr. Grande stated that existing zoning and design review requirements
would still be in place.

Committee Member Fisher noted an issue about taxation and code enforcement for
these lots since the new units will not be subdivided for ownership.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 773
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary – September 29, 2025
Z-TA-1-25-Y


Chair Gasparro stated there are issues with infrastructure and parking. Mr. Grande
noted that the City doesn’t have the ability to require more parking than one parking
space per unit under this code.

Committee Member Broberg asked if the City has an analysis of the potential
universe of homes that could take advantage of this ordinance and if there is an
understanding of the neighborhoods that will be impacted with potential parking
issues. Mr. Grande noted that staff have been discussing with neighborhoods around
downtown that have been concerned about potential impacts.

Committee Member Strem asked if the State provided a rationale for passing this
legislation. Chair Gasparro stated that many cities and states are passing similar
laws to this to help with housing affordability.

Chair Gasparro asked for clarification on the penalty if a city does not comply with
this law. Mr. Grande replied that the penalty could be that the City would lose control
over regulation for middle housing completely.

Committee Member Broberg asked for clarification on the lot coverage requirement.
Mr. Grande replied that the lot coverage requirements for single-family lots would not
be changed by this text.

Committee Member Slobodzian asked about discussions with the Water Services
Department about water supply. Mr. Grande stated that new water connections are
reviewed by the Water Services Department and developments are required to have
a water supply before they can be built, adding that sewer capacity is required in the
same way.

Committee Member Fisher asked if there was any consideration about other issues
such as deeds and taxes that could delay construction. Mr. Grande noted that the
legislation requires the City to allow middle housing through zoning and development
codes, which is what this proposal does.

Chair Gasparro asked about public comments that have been given in the meetings
up to this point. Mr. Grande noted that the largest concern has been the impacts to
historic neighborhoods near downtown.

Committee Member Broberg asked if this legislation was crafted based on a bill in
another state. Mr. Grande stated that he didn’t know. Chair Gasparro speculated
that this legislation was copied and pasted from another state.

Committee Member Fisher discussed the need for a mechanism to enforce changes
to the tax requirements for new middle housing developments. Committee Member
Broberg added that this creates an incentive to not disclose additional units on a lot
to avoid tax issues.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 774
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary – September 29, 2025
Z-TA-1-25-Y


Committee Member Fisher asked if HOAs would have the ability to restrict middle
housing. Mr. Grande stated that the law does not impact HOA requirements.

Chair Gasparro commented about issues with school capacity that haven’t been
considered in creating this legislation.

Committee Member Jain stated that this is not a good response to the legislation
and that the City could have tried to realize the goal of the legislation and revised the
zoning regulations to do more than the minimum to incentivize additional housing. Mr.
Grande reviewed some of the City’s housing-related policies, noting that this
ordinance was focused on responding specifically to the legislation.

Committee Member Strem stated that this will not create affordable housing.

Chair Gasparro suggested that incentivizing housing could be done through
demolition credits and fee waivers in the area where middle housing is desired by
policymakers.

Vice Chair Mager asked if this would likely result in demolition of buildings to
construct middle housing developments. Mr. Grande stated that it is a question of
economic feasibility for each lot, highlighting that the law would allow redevelopment
or conversion of existing homes.

Committee Member Fisher stated that the legislation is not well written.

Committee Member Broberg highlighted that the City could provide a better
response to what they are doing to address the housing shortage in Phoenix.

Committee Member Fisher stated that this overlay should be limited to the one-mile
radius that’s required, and it would be an issue if it were expanded.

Chair Gasparro asked if the Committee’s comments will be conveyed to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Grande stated that the comments drafted as minutes will be
provided to the Planning Commission before the meeting on this item.

Committee Member Jain asked for clarification about how the overlay will apply to
new developments of 10 acres or more. Mr. Grande described the mechanism.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 775
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting September 30, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related
state requirements related to Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION

Committee Member Crews arrived during this item, bringing quorum to 11 members.

Item Nos. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case and stated the items would be heard concurrently. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that there had been previous public presentations on this text
amendment and information was available online. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the
background regarding House Bill 2721, details of the proposed zoning text to revise
regulations and create the Middle Housing Overlay District. Mr. Roanhorse provided
examples of Middle Housing and the applicability for residential development. Mr.
Roanhorse presented the applicability to new subdivisions, limitations and the
implications for Historic Preservation. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the boundary of the
proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Krietor asked for clarification on the northern boundary of the
Central Business District. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the northern boundary is
McDowell Road. Committee Member Krietor stated that the area shown does not
appear to include the Alhambra Village, but Middle Housing would be important for the



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 30, 2025


area and the requirement for 20 percent in new subdivisions may not be applicable to
Alhambra, as there are few, if any, sites available for new subdivision development.

Chair Sanchez asked if an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) would allow for two-story
construction on a lot. Mr. Roanhorse responded that Middle Housing allows duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes would allow up to two stories. Committee Member
Keyser commented that ADUs have typically been limited to one story, and the text
amendment appears to be a change from past regulations, noting that he had seen two-
story accessory structures previously cited for noncompliance.

Committee Member Ender asked whether the middle housing requirements would
impact existing CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions). Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the state legislation does not override private CC&Rs, which are
enforced separately from city zoning regulations. Committee Member Ender asked
about the availability of infrastructure and services to support Middle Housing
development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that during the plan review process, City staff
evaluate the availability of infrastructure and identify any necessary adjustments, and
this information is provided to the applicant to ensure that new development can be
supported appropriately.

Committee Member Ender asked how parking would be accommodated for middle
housing, particularly in neighborhoods where street parking is already common. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that parking can be provided on the lot being developed and
noted that under the new text amendment, the city cannot require more than one off-
street parking space per dwelling unit, in alignment with the state’s middle housing
legislation.

Committee Member Harris asked if there will be design criteria in place to ensure that
middle housing developments in existing neighborhoods maintain the appearance of
single-family homes to maintain the architectural character of the area. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that all new developments must comply with the design requirements
outlined in the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member DeGraffenried asked if middle housing could be designed to
resemble single-family homes. Mr. Roanhorse responded that while the developments
must follow established design guidelines, the intent is to ensure compatibility with
surrounding structures.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the applicability of historic preservation which
raised a question on designated historic buildings and if existing parking would remain
in place if the property were redeveloped. Mr. Roanhorse responded that if an
entitlement for parking has already been granted in association with a site, it would
remain valid unless the entitlement is formally changed.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 777
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 30, 2025


Committee Member Shore asked about the potential impact of Middle Housing on
historic properties and if the new regulations could lead to increased demolitions and
asked if there would be changes to front yards and lot configurations. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that historic properties are not exempt from the middle housing requirements
and the existing review procedures and demolition restrictions for historic properties
would remain unchanged.

Committee Member Crews commented that various duplex and triplex properties
blend into existing neighborhoods and noted a specific example near 3rd Avenue and
Thomas Road, where a house with multiple units had parking integrated into the
existing design. Committee Member Crews stated that the legislative intent behind the
Middle Housing requirements was to increase housing options, not to override local
design authority. Mr. Roanhorse noted that the text amendment did not include any
provisions that would preempt the City’s authority over design standards, and this
remains a city responsibility, allowing communities to maintain architectural consistency
and neighborhood character.

Committee Member Velasco asked if the intent of the legislation was to increase
housing supply which does not necessarily guarantee affordability. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the current housing shortage has driven a surge in residential
development and that Middle Housing is one strategy to diversify the housing stock and
provide a broader range of options to meet varying needs and conditions.

Committee Member Crews stated that affordable housing remains a significant
challenge in the community and there needs to be a broad discussion on the topic to
explore several potential solutions. Committee Member Crews stated no definitive
conclusions were reached during legislative discussions. Committee Member Crews
expressed the importance of collaboration among various levels of government and
community organizations in addressing housing affordability. Committee Member Crews
stated the Village Planning Committee has a role in facilitating these discussions and
contributing to potential solutions. Committee Member Crews expressed optimism that
the introduction of Middle Housing could improve both pricing and availability, potentially
to ease the affordability crisis. Committee Member Crews stated there is concern about
the trend of constructing luxury-style short-term rentals, such as Airbnb properties,
which may undermine affordability goals and stressed the need for closer monitoring of
such developments. Committee Member Crews stated that affordability does not equate
to availability, especially as more people continue to move to Phoenix and while current
pricing may allow some individuals to purchase homes, addressing the broader issue of
affordability will require significant and sustained involvement from multiple
stakeholders.

Committee Member Vallo asked about density bonuses for low-income housing. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that there are incentives in place for development and noted that
there are challenges due to the prevalence of market-rate developments, which often
outpace affordable housing projects. Mr. Roanhorse said there are active projects

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 778
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 30, 2025


currently underway that do include affordable housing components and progress is
being made but will take time before these units become readily available to the
community.

Committee Member Krietor commented that the Alhambra Village has demonstrated
responsiveness in adapting to housing needs, particularly through its integration with
light rail and collaboration with organizations such as UMOM and Catholic Charities and
these efforts have helped provide housing options and opportunities for residents and
stated that the Village Planning Committee has consistently supported initiatives that
promote affordable housing.

Committee Member Shore asked how TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) supports
residential growth. Mr. Roanhorse responded that TOD is designed to facilitate active
transportation by improving accessibility between residential areas and businesses
along the light rail corridor which are specifically planned to maximize access and
ridership while promoting a variety of residential options.

Committee Member Keyser asked if the existing overlay districts would be extended
and commented that potential adverse impacts of urban sprawl may result. Committee
Member Keyser stated that sprawl affects transportation systems, energy consumption,
and design efficiency which are issues that all planning committees should consider as
development continues. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the city has implemented a
shade policy, incorporated water conservation measures, and improved construction
design standards, all of which contribute to more sustainable development practices.
Committee Member Keyser commented that while improved irrigation systems are
beneficial, they have limitations and noted the importance of monitoring and adjusting
policies as new technologies emerge to ensure long-term effectiveness and
sustainability.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 779
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related
state requirements related to Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

Vice Chair Paceley left the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 16 members.

Item Nos. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state legislation,
details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the Middle Housing
Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline
for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Schmieder asked about the scenario of an existing fourplex and if
the owner would be required to keep it. Mr. Grande replied that the zoning would still
allow single-family homes and would not require a fourplex to be constructed or
retained.

Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen asked for clarification regarding this proposal
and the ADU text amendment. Mr. Grande replied that the ADU provision is separate
and would still be allowed on lots with a single-family home.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary – September 9, 2025
Z-TA-1-25-Y


Committee Member Guevar asked if the City had looked into potential issues with
lenders who could see these properties as multifamily after this overlay is approved. Mr.
Grande replied that he hadn’t heard of that concern, noting that the zoning districts
would retain the label of Single-Family Residence District.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification that this would apply on any
individual lot within 1 mile of downtown. Mr. Grande replied that it would. Mr. Whitesell
stated a desire to communicate to the City that they should advocate to the State
Legislature for creating an exemption for historic properties. Chair Fischbach stated
that since this is information only, the Committee should not take a formal vote on any
motion, encouraging Committee Members to contact their representatives at the City
level to express their concerns.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 781
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related
state requirements related to Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 16, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of
related state requirements related to Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard together.

Committee Member Leon Thomas left during this item bring the quorum to 8 members
present.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state legislation,
details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the Middle Housing
Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline
for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Members asked questions regarding various aspects of the Proposed Text
Amendment and Middle Housing Overlay District including clarification regarding the
boundary of the Middle Housing Overlay District, its impact on historic properties, the
ability to demolish existing housing and replace with middle housing, the provision
regarding middle housing in new subdivisions, and the State Legislature’s rationale for
passing the bill. Mr. Kuhfuss provided answers to those questions.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 783
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Beverly Richards asked for clarification as to whether middle housing could be
constructed outside of the Overlay District. Mr. Kuhfuss provided clarification.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 784
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting September 2, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of
related state requirements related to Middle Housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 6 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 7 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard together.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections,

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 785
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key
takeaways.

Questions from Committee:
Chair Steven Bowser asked if the provision to apply the MH Overlay District to 20
percent of the lots within a new subdivision of 10 acres or more is citywide. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Bowser stated that all Arizona State Land
Department (ASLD) auctioned parcels are over 10 acres, noting that this provision
would impact the Desert View Village, unless developers plat subdivisions less than 10
acres at a time. Chair Bowser asked if middle housing is required to be provided. Mr.
Zambrano responded that middle housing would have to be allowed on at least 20
percent of the lots within the subdivision to comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano
added that the developer could still choose to not build middle housing on those lots.
Mr. Zambrano stated that the developer will tell the City which lots within their
subdivision they want to apply the MH Overlay District, and then staff would send a
supplementary zoning map to the City Council to adopt. Chair Bowser asked if middle
housing could be clustered together within the subdivision. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively, noting that there are no restrictions on how the MH-zoned lots have to be
dispersed throughout the subdivision. Chair Bowser asked for clarification that the City
cannot require fire sprinklers. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Zambrano
stated that there were recent updates to the Phoenix building code, noting that they
were also following this legislation, and the updates to the building code would address
any safety concerns.

Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked if the opt-in provision for new subdivisions of 10 acres
or more citywide is optional. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law requires any
new subdivision of 10 acres or more to allow middle housing on 20 percent of the lots
within the subdivision.

Committee Member Joseph Barto stated that “must allow” does not sound like a
mandate. Committee Member Barto stated that it sounds like an allowance. Mr.
Zambrano responded that it is a requirement of the State law.

Vice Chair Lagrave asked if a developer can opt to not build middle housing within a
subdivision. Mr. Zambrano responded that the developer can opt to not build middle
housing, but the zoning must still allow for it on 20 percent of the lots within the
subdivision. Vice Chair Lagrave asked if a new homeowners association (HOA) has to
comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs can have stricter


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 786
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

restrictions than the City. Mr. Zambrano added that the City does not enforce HOA
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Committee Member Richard Carlucci asked why the City did not extend the MH
Overlay District around high-capacity transit stops, noting that the data center text
amendment referenced the need for higher-density housing around these areas. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the MH Overlay District is more specific to single-family
subdivisions. Mr. Zambrano added that there are adopted transit oriented development
(TOD) and transit oriented community (TOC) policy plans that provide guidance for
future rezoning requests to rezone to the Walkable Urban (WU) Code within these
policy plan areas, which does not have any density limitations. Committee Member
Carlucci asked if there was consideration to extend the MH Overlay District to other
areas of the city in order to help increase the supply of housing and bring down housing
costs. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure since he was not involved in the
drafting of this text amendment. Mr. Zambrano stated that the proposed text
amendment is trying to comply with the State law requirements. Mr. Zambrano added
that the MH Overlay District does apply citywide for 20 percent of the lots in any new
subdivision of 10 acres or more. Committee Member Carlucci asked how many single-
family lots are within one mile of Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded that he
was not sure. Mr. Zambrano stated that there are a lot of single-family lots within the
area, including some historic districts. Mr. Zambrano stated that the State law does not
override existing historic design review requirements. Committee Member Carlucci
stated that the same development standards as a single-family home does not do a lot
to provide more housing, noting that much smaller units would have to be squeezed into
the building envelope. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would depend on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. Zambrano displayed and discussed the typical lot setback exhibit. Committee
Member Carlucci stated that the City seems to be doing the bare minimum to comply
with the State law, noting that Phoenix is one of the fastest growing cities that needs
more housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City is working on other efforts to
increase housing options, such as the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) text amendment
and expanding the WU Code around transit corridors. Mr. Zambrano added that the
State legislature is passing legislation simultaneously, so the City has to keep up with
the legislation as well.

Vice Chair Lagrave disagreed with Committee Member Carlucci. Vice Chair Lagrave
stated that Phoenix is a wide open, western place. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that
Phoenix is not New York City, nor Baltimore, nor Chicago. Vice Chair Lagrave stated
that Phoenix is a spread-out city with a certain lifestyle. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that
he does not want houses crammed into the city that creates a concrete jungle. Vice
Chair Lagrave stated that he wants the space to have trees and homes where families
can be raised.

Committee Member David Kollar stated that it is a moot point since the State law
already passed. Committee Member Kollar asked for clarification that if the text
amendment does not get passed by the end of the year, then all City restrictions go
away. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the State law included a
severe penalty clause that stated if the regulations are not adopted by January 1, 2026,

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 787
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

then middle housing will be allowed on all lots zoned for single-family residential use
citywide, without any limitations. Mr. Zambrano added that “without any limitations”
could mean without any zoning controls whatsoever.

Chair Bowser asked for clarification that a subdivision of 10 acres or more that applies
the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots would not be heard by the Committee.
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it would be without any public
hearing. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff would send a supplementary zoning map to the
outside of the areas applicable to the State law, could still request to rezone to the MH
Overlay District through the public hearing process.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if the subdivision would have to be of 10 acres or
more. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is a request to rezone to the MH Overlay
District, it does not have to be of 10 acres or more.

Chair Bowser stated that there are patio homes that were built prior to the 1980s along
Scottsdale Road south of McDonald Drive that seem to be a middle housing option.
Chair Bowser stated that they are still quite nice and are higher-density and affordable
homes. Chair Bowser stated that they could be a great product if done well
architecturally. Mr. Zambrano responded that part of the text amendment is also
amending Section 507 Tab A of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to update the Individual
Unit Design Standards to also apply to middle housing and require design review of
middle housing.

Committee Member Jason Israel asked if ADUs would still be permitted. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Zambrano stated that the text amendment is
also amending sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance so ADUs would only be
permitted on a lot with one primary dwelling unit. Committee Member Israel asked
where the City is at within the timeline. Mr. Zambrano responded that the cases would
be voted on by the Planning Commission in October and the City Council in November.

Committee Member Kollar asked if it is common for the State legislature to play a
hand in local zoning regulations. Mr. Zambrano responded that it has been more
common recently.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

Committee Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 788
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle
Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms and to
ensure proper application of related state requirements
related to Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Three members of the public registered to speak on the item, with one in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

Chris DePerro, with the City of Phoenix Planning Department (PDD), provided a
presentation on the City’s Middle Housing Text Amendment and accompanying Overlay
District. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be
reviewed first to provide context which would establish the Middle Housing Overlay
District in areas of central Phoenix. Mr. DePerro explained that this initiative stems from
House Bill 2721, passed during the 2024 legislative session, which requires all Arizona
cities with populations over 75,000 to allow middle housing under certain conditions. Mr.
DePerro stated that the Middle Housing, as defined in the legislation, includes duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes, up to a maximum of four units per lot. Mr.
DePerro emphasized that the legislation was state-mandated, not locally initiated and
outlined several requirements of the bill, including the requirement to allow up to four
dwelling units per single-family lot in certain areas of central Phoenix. Mr. DePerro
explained that at least 20 percent of the lots in any new subdivision of 10 contiguous
acres or more must permit middle housing. Mr. DePerro stated Middle Housing must be
treated no more restrictively than single-family housing in terms of permitting, review,
and development standards. Mr. DePerro further explained restrictions that the City may
not impose, including requirements for fire sprinklers, owner occupancy, or more than
one off-street parking space per unit. Mr. DePerro stated the City also may not
discourage rental housing or impose regulations more restrictive than those applied to
single-family dwellings. Mr. DePerro emphasized that if Phoenix fails to adopt the
required regulations by January 1, 2026, middle housing would automatically be allowed
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 789
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

without limitation on all single-family residential lots in the city. Mr. DePerro then
described Text Amendment Z-TA-12-5-Y, which revises zoning regulations to comply
with state law, and Rezoning Case Z-3-25-4-7-8, which applies the overlay district to the
one-mile area surrounding downtown Phoenix as required. Mr. DePerro explained that
the overlay district would function in addition to the existing underlying zoning, allowing
either the density permitted by zoning or four units, whichever is greater. Mr. DePerro’s
presentation included maps outlining the overlay district boundary, which follows a one-
mile radius around the designated downtown core. Mr. DePerro said the Federal
aviation noise contours exclude certain areas from the overlay due to restrictions on
residential density near the airport. Mr. DePerro clarified that historic preservation
regulations remain unchanged, including demolition restrictions and review procedures
for historic properties. Mr. DePerro also noted that recent code updates extended the
review stay for eligible properties from 30 days to 60 days. Mr. DePerro provided
development examples on typical R1-6 lots, including setbacks, building envelopes, and
limitations on lot coverage. Visual examples of duplex and fourplex designs were shown
to illustrate how middle housing could be integrated within existing neighborhoods. Mr.
DePerro stressed that the proposal does not permit subdivision of lots beyond existing
entitlements, nor does it allow more units than authorized by law. Mr. DePerro provided
an example demonstrating how 20 percent of lots would be designated for middle
housing and mapped with the overlay district. Mr. DePerro emphasized that subdivision
design could accommodate varied lot sizes or locations for middle housing. Mr. DePerro
reviewed the proposed timeline for Planning Commission for information in September
and recommendation was scheduled for October 6. Mr. DePerro stated the City Council
will consider action on November 5, 2025. Mr. DePerro provided a summary and noted
the middle housing requirement is state-mandated, must be applied within one mile of
downtown and to 20 percent of new subdivisions over 10 acres and the City faces the
risk of losing zoning controls entirely if regulations are not adopted by the state
deadline.
Mr. DePerro directed attendees to additional resources at phoenix.gov/middlehousing

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Warnicke asked if the driving force behind the legislation was the
historical shift away from middle housing. Mr. DePerro responded that while he did not
want to speak directly to the legislature’s intent, many consultants and proponents
suggest that the law is a way to increase density in areas where it has become difficult.
Mr. DePerro acknowledged that there are broader policy discussions surrounding the
issue, but he could not say with certainty why the legislature chose this approach.

Committee Member Warnicke stated that historically there had been middle housing,
but that it is no longer permitted, and noted that multifamily housing is not currently
allowed in single-family residential zoning. Mr. DePerro responded that multifamily
housing is not permitted in single-family zoning districts. Committee Member Warnicke
asked when multifamily development is allowed. Mr. DePerro responded that multifamily
zoning is typically applied through separate zoning designations and is defined as a lot
that allows more than one primary unit. Committee Member Warnicke stated that this
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 790
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

would include duplexes and apartments. Committee Member Warnicke noted that the
state requires the provisions to apply within one mile of the Central Business District,
but the definition of that area varies. Mr. DePerro responded that neighborhoods such
as Willo, La Hacienda, and Alvarado, while zoned R1-6 or R1-10, technically allow
duplexes under certain lot conditions, which makes them multifamily zones. Mr. DePerro
stated that those districts only allow duplexes on larger lots and that this provision does
not actually increase density. Committee Member Warnicke confirmed that duplexes are
still permitted under those designations and suggested that they could therefore be
considered multifamily zoning. Mr. DePerro responded and noted that point but
explained that the state law requires the city to apply the middle housing provisions to
lots zoned for single-family uses which includes the areas in question. Committee
Member Warnicke expressed frustration, stating that these lots already allow multifamily
development and that applying the law in this manner threatens historic neighborhoods
and noted that historic designation can be lost if more than 50 percent of contributing
homes are removed. Committee Member Warnicke said that the overlay boundary
appeared to cut into La Hacienda while avoiding his own property. Mr. DePerro stated
that the city’s text amendment is intended to comply with state law, regardless of
whether the legislature considered impacts on historic neighborhoods. Committee
Member Warnicke stated that the state law only applies to single-family residential
properties, and reiterated his position that some of these areas should be classified as
multifamily. Mr. DePerro stated that he and Mr. Warnicke appeared to disagree on that
interpretation. Committee Member Warnicke asked about the 20 percent multifamily
requirement for subdivisions. Mr. DePerro responded that the requirement applies only
to new subdivisions of 10 acres or more, typically in areas such as north Phoenix, and
not to existing neighborhoods. Committee Member Warnicke asked if this meant there
was no 20 percent cap on middle housing in neighborhoods like Willo. Mr. DePerro
responded that there is no such cap and that, if the overlay were approved, any eligible
lot within Willo could potentially develop as middle housing, including fourplexes.
Committee Member Warnicke concluded by stating that this would allow widespread
redevelopment in historic areas. Mr. DePerro agreed that this was correct under the
proposed application of the state law.

Committee Member Procaccini asked what would happen if the City chose to reduce
the size of the Central Business District, noting that it might be considered beneficial in
some cases to shrink the designated downtown area. Mr. DePerro responded that there
are two potential issues with that approach first, the state law specifies that the
applicable Central Business District boundaries are those that were designated as of
September 14, 2024 and no changes can be made at this point. Mr. DePerro stated
second, the law also contains a provision prohibiting cumulative or individual actions by
municipalities that interfere with housing development. Mr. DePerro said that if city were
to attempt to shrink the boundaries, it could be considered noncompliant under that
provision and that the September 14, 2024 designation date is the controlling factor.

Committee Member Wagner stated that under normal procedure, text amendments
are presented to Village Planning Committees for information only, followed by at least
a month to review and provide input and in this case, however, the process was not
being followed. Committee Member Wagner said that the proposed text amendment is
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 791
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

178 pages long and was only received by the committee a few days prior to the
meeting, which made it very difficult for members to adequately review the information
and further expressed that the amendment would greatly benefit from committee input
and questioned why the committee was not being given that opportunity.
Joshua Bednarek, PDD Director, responded that it was a valid concern and explained
that the planning staff were attending all Village Planning Committee meetings this
month to provide information and ensure that word about the new law was reaching the
community. Mr. Bednarek stated that the language presented in the amendment reflects
the minimum requirements of state law, leaving little room for adjustment and the City’s
priority is compliance with the law and meeting the statutory deadline requiring City
Council action later this year. Mr. Bednarek expressed that while staff values feedback,
the purpose of these presentations are primarily informational and offered to provide his
contact information to any committee members or members of the public who wished to
ask further questions. Committee Member Wagner stated that while she appreciated the
explanation, she remained concerned. Committee Member Wagner shared the concern
that neighborhoods had been in contact with other cities, which were approaching the
legislation differently and actively working to mitigate its impacts. Committee Member
Wagner emphasized that the City of Phoenix was not necessarily taking the bare
minimum approach, and that this issue warranted more public discussion with Village
Planning Committees. Committee Member Wagner also questioned the stated deadline,
noting that City staff had known about the legislation since February 2024, according to
emails. Committee Member Wagner said this with the accessory dwelling unit
legislation, which passed in May and had to be implemented by January 2025 and in
the case of the middle housing bill, she said, cities were given an additional year to act.
Committee Member Wagner expressed frustration that the committee was being told
there was no more time to review the amendment, despite Phoenix having had
significantly more time to prepare.

Committee Member Kleinman asked for clarification regarding the timeline of the
legislation and stated his understanding that the State of Arizona passed the bill during
the 2024 legislative session, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. Committee
Member Kleinman noted that cities are required to adopt local regulations by that same
date and asked whether the City of Phoenix had the authority to extend or delay the
effective date, or whether it must begin enforcement on January 1, 2026. Committee
Member Kleinman explained that his concern was twofold if the state legislature
amends the law during the upcoming session, it would be problematic for the city to take
action prematurely and then be unable to undo its decisions. Committee Member
Kleinman suggested that, at a minimum, the city should consider delaying
implementation until any potential state-level amendments are resolved. Mr. Bednarek
responded that the idea of delaying the effective date had been suggested and was
referred to the City’s Law Department and the initial response was that the law is clear
in requiring implementation on January 1, 2026. Mr. Bednarek noted that delaying
implementation could put the city at risk of being found noncompliant and added that the
matter could be further discussed with the Law Department and potentially with the City
Council.

Committee Member Rodriguez stated that she supports the house bill overall but
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 792
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

expressed disappointment that it did not extend further and explained that her home,
built in 1932, was located just outside of the overlay area. Committee Member
Rodriguez stated that she would like the opportunity to redevelop her property into
housing that contributes to the city’s future, which she considered part of building a
better history. Committee Member Rodriguez noted that her neighborhood lacks the tax
incentives, gated communities, safe bike lanes, and other infrastructure present in other
areas, while still experiencing challenges such as cut-through traffic from the reverse
lanes, she stated that the bill does not go far enough and encouraged the city to be
bolder in extending its provisions. Committee Member Rodriguez added that other
cities, such as Portland, have implemented similar policies without significant impacts
from demolitions, and she offered to share those examples with the committee.

Committee Member Wagner stated that the city was aware of legislation introduced in
the prior session seeking to exempt historic districts and emphasized that while she
supports rental housing, she also values maintaining historic districts, which have been
carefully preserved for decades. Committee Member Wagner noted that another
attempt to exempt historic districts may be made in the upcoming legislative session
and stated there is concern that the current 178-page text amendment appeared to be a
rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, rather than a simple overlay as previously described.
Committee Member Wagner questioned why the committee had not been told earlier
that such extensive changes would be included and asked why multifamily provisions
were being revised when the legislation was directed at single-family zoning. Mr.
DePerro responded that he had described the amendment as involving extensive
revisions in several prior presentations and that this approach was taken out of caution
due to the statutory requirement that single-family and middle housing be treated
identically. Mr. DePerro stated in many parts of the Zoning Ordinance, the two are
treated differently, with middle housing subject to more restrictive provisions therefore,
significant revisions were necessary to bring them into alignment. Mr. DePerro clarified
the mechanism for implementation and stated that the text amendment itself does not
grant entitlements but the following agenda item the zoning case would apply the Middle
Housing Overlay (MH) to properties. Mr. DePerro stated the text amendment
establishes the framework and creates the overlay district, but actual entitlement would
only occur through a rezoning action and noted that the opt-in provision for 10-acre
subdivisions functions similarly, requiring a property owner to request the overlay before
it is applied. Committee Member Wagner responded that her neighborhood had held
several meetings with the PDD and had repeatedly asked for a seat at the table during
the drafting of the amendment. Committee Member Wagner expressed frustration that
those requests were not accommodated and that the committee was now being asked
to consider the amendment at the last minute without sufficient time for review.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Mr. Will Kerwin introduced himself as a resident on Willetta Street stated that he lives
in a duplex where two different houses are located on the same lot and considered a
plan to rent out the back unit once it became unoccupied, and asked if that would still be
possible under the proposed ordinance. Mr. DePerro responded that, without knowing
the exact circumstances, nothing being proposed should change an existing entitlement
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 793
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

and confirmed that if the second residence is currently legal, then the entitlement
remains. Mr. DePerro invited Mr. Kerwin to send him specific details by email so staff
could research the property’s history and provide a clear response and emphasized that
the ordinance was intended to add entitlement for additional units, not take away
existing rights. Mr. Kerwin shared a neighborhood concern regarding an individual who
built a multi-story structure, which appeared to have been left unfinished and that
residents suspected the intent was to drive up property taxes to force buyouts, though
he acknowledged this may not be true. Mr. DePerro replied that if the structure was built
without permits, that would be a code enforcement issue and asked for clarification
about whether the construction was permitted. Mr. Kerwin clarified that he was raising
the example hypothetically and asked whether, under the ordinance, someone could
legally construct a multi-story building for speculative purposes. Mr. DePerro explained
that the ordinance did not increase allowable building height, setbacks, or envelope
limits and the intention of the changes only addressed the number of units allowed on a
lot. Mr. DePerro stated that the ordinance would not permit a five-story building in a
single-family neighborhood, since the existing height and setback limits would still apply.
Mr. Kerwin acknowledged the clarification but asked whether there was a way to
mitigate the impact of increased property taxes on neighbors. Mr. DePerro responded
that property taxes are difficult to predict and stated that values can both rise and fall,
referencing the Great Recession when values plummeted. Mr. DePerro stated that the
ordinance had been crafted with a focus on zoning and entitlements, and broader
economic impacts such as property taxation had not been a primary consideration.

Mr. Mike Mark introduced himself as a resident on Holly Street and stated that he had
several questions and asked whether the city currently knew how many lots would be
impacted by the ordinance, noting that there are empty lots that could be targeted. Mr.
Mark added that estimating the number of eligible lots would be helpful, since it was
likely that developers would begin to purchase such properties to take advantage of the
new entitlements. Mr. DePerro responded that the estimate was on a graphic he had
previously shared, but he did not have it readily available at the meeting and apologized
and stated that he could provide the figure later. Mr. DePerro confirmed that the
calculation was included in staff’s analysis and agreed that vacant lots zoned
appropriately would be among the first likely to be impacted. Mr. Mark asserted that this
suggested a likely targeting of properties for redevelopment and asked whether the
city’s Middle Housing website included real-life examples of duplexes, triplexes, or
fourplexes on single-family lots. Mr. DePerro responded that the photos shown in the
presentation were real examples from Phoenix and had been used to illustrate what the
ordinance would proceed. Mr. Mark confirmed that the images were taken from within
Phoenix, including areas near a neighborhood dog park in the area of 3rd Avenue and
Culver Street, but emphasized his concern that the ordinance appeared punitive toward
historic properties. Mr. Mark expressed that the proposal seemed almost surgically
targeted to impact historic neighborhoods in particular and added that he wished the
policy could instead be mirrored so that his neighborhood would be affected rather than
historic districts, which he believed should be spared from such negative impacts.

Joan Gresch stated she is a longtime resident of the area since 1977 and had
concerns for the committee regarding historic preservation and the impact of recent
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 794
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

state laws. Ms. Gresch shared her personal experience restoring a historic home from
the 1920s in downtown Phoenix with her husband while earning less than $20,000 per
year at the time. Ms. Gresch stated that the Historic Preservation program provided tax
incentives and guidelines that allowed them and others to rehabilitate historic properties
appropriately, contributing to the revitalization of the neighborhood. Ms. Gresch
expressed concern that recent state interventions have undermined these protections
and threatened the progress made over decades. Ms. Gresch urged the city to support
residents if legal action arises, emphasizing the emotional and financial investment her
family has made in preserving the historic character of their home and neighborhood.
Mr. DePerro responded that the current law, while allowing up to four units on a
property, does not remove existing historic preservation protections and stated that the
design review processes and other safeguards under both state law and city plans
would remain in place. Ms. Gresch acknowledged this clarification but emphasized that
the broader context and discussion about preserving historic districts remain critical.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED, COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Procaccini asked whether the city’s website allowed residents to
type in their address to determine if their property fell within the proposed middle
housing overlay area, noting that he lived near the boundary and was unable to tell. Mr.
DePerro responded that the website did provide that function and that members of the
public could also email him directly with an address and he would confirm the
information, often faster than the online tool.

Committee Member Wagner asked how many square miles were included in the
middle housing overlay area shown on the map. Mr. DePerro responded that he did not
have the exact figure memorized but estimated that the area covered between five and
six square miles in and around downtown. Mr. DePerro noted that this represented a
small portion of Phoenix overall, which spans approximately 520 square miles.
Committee Member Wagner said that, while the overlay represented only five to six
square miles, it was still a significant area when viewed in comparison to the entire city.

Committee Member Kleinman expressed concern about the impact of increasing
housing in historic neighborhoods and asked whether the city could mandate that new
housing developments, specifically those referenced in the middle of the presentation
on page 92, be designated as workforce or affordable housing. Committee Member
Kleinman emphasized the need to prevent historic homes from being replaced by high-
cost fourplexes potentially used for short-term rentals, such as Airbnb. Committee
Member Kleinman asked if there were any mechanisms to limit high-cost townhouses
and short-term rentals in these historic areas. Mr. DePerro responded that both short-
term rentals and affordable housing requirements are largely restricted by state law. Mr.
DePerro explained that the city has minimal control over short-term rentals and cannot
require affordable housing in zoning cases or stipulations and stated that while the city
can incentivize affordable housing, it cannot mandate it and that the city is exploring
other potential approaches to mitigate community concerns while remaining compliant
with state law, although no solutions had been finalized. Mr. DePerro emphasized that
the city is listening to feedback and seeking ways to balance middle housing
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 795
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

requirements with the preservation of historic districts.

Committee Member Wagner stated that, in line with Committee Member Kleinman’s
concerns about workforce housing, a neighboring property near the dog park as
formerly mentioned recently sold for $2.6 million. Committee Member Wagner noted
that this example indicates the development is unlikely to provide affordable housing.

Committee Member Perez asked whether any language incentivizing affordable or
workforce housing had been considered in the text amendment and asked if such
measures could be incorporated as a potential avenue for encouraging these types of
housing. Mr. DePerro responded that while such incentives could potentially be
considered, they had not been included in the current text amendment and stated that
the language as written represents the minimum required to comply with state law. Mr.
DePerro acknowledged the concerns about providing additional incentives or
protections but emphasized that state law does not require these provisions, and their
absence is consistent with legal compliance.

Committee Member Kleinman expressed frustration with the city’s limited flexibility
under state law and recalled past experiences in which the city initially faced restrictions
but eventually implemented changes, noting that simply complying with state law does
not preclude the city from exploring measures that could benefit Phoenix. Committee
Member Kleinman stressed that fear of potential lawsuits should not prevent proactive
efforts to improve outcomes for the city and its residents. Mr. Bednarek responded
noting that any action outside the boundaries of state law could trigger complaints to the
Attorney General under State Statute 1487, potentially putting $850 million in state
funding at risk. Mr. Bednarek clarified that such disputes do not automatically go to
court and follow a 30-day process. Committee Member Kleinman stated that the city
has previously navigated conflicts with state law in other contexts, such as fair wages,
and argued that avoiding any attempt to push the envelope in this case seems overly
cautious. Committee Member Kleinman emphasized that his comments were meant as
an opinion and not a directive, expressing his perspective that the city could explore
creative approaches without undue risk. Mr. Bednarek responded stating that he took
no offense to the comments and appreciated the perspective.

Committee Member Rodriguez shared her perspective on affordable housing and the
overall benefits of increasing housing stock and invited fellow committee members and
staff to collaborate on initiatives aimed at promoting affordable housing. Committee
Member Rodriguez emphasized that increasing housing availability can make housing
more accessible in general and stated differing viewpoints on historic preservation but
expressed the belief that denser, thoughtfully designed housing can contribute positively
to the community’s history. Committee Member Rodriguez also highlighted that parts of
Phoenix, including this area, benefit from some of the city’s most successful public
transportation systems and bike lanes and suggested that adding new housing,
regardless of affordability designation, could help reduce overall housing costs by
increasing supply. Committee Member Rodriguez stated it is important to encourage
broader collaboration and engagement from committee members on housing issues.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 796
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

Committee Member Warnicke commented on the public comments and expressed
appreciation for the eloquence of the previous speaker and said she is absolutely right
in what we are facing is an existential threat to our historic neighborhoods. Committee
Member Warnicke stated the idea of launching 5,000 homes into these areas is
alarming and has asked the city how many historic homes are at risk, and still had not
received an answer. Committee Member Warnicke stated if we estimate 5,000 homes
and allow fourplexes on each, that’s 20,000 residences replacing 5,000 single-family
homes. Committee Member Warnicke stated that in the past year alone, over 20,000
apartments have come online, and there’s another 20,000 expected next year and there
is already a glut. Committee Member Warnicke stated this attack on historic
neighborhoods is not only unnecessary it is absurd and will not achieve its intended
goals. Committee Member Warnicke stated these lots will be subdivided or made
available for affordable purchase and they will be expensive, likely short-term rentals
like Airbnbs and this is very upsetting. Committee Member Warnicke stated there will be
a lawsuit but not against the state and the state can pass these laws, but the city is not
obligated to adopt a text amendment that implements them in this way. Committee
Member Warnicke stated there is a legal argument for exempting R1-6 and R1-10
zones, especially those with homes subdivided before 1998 or 1999 and these areas
are already entitled to duplexes because our historic neighborhoods are already denser
than many of the true single-family neighborhoods in Phoenix that do not allow
duplexes. Committee Warnicke stated his office is in a home that was converted from a
duplex which are scattered throughout the Willo Neighborhood. Committee Member
Warnicke stated the city does not have to do this it is choosing to and that is why there
is going to be a fight with the city. Committee Member Warnicke stated he should not
have to fight both the state and the city, but that’s the position we have been put in
which is ridiculous. Committee Member Warnicke stated we have invested hundreds of
thousands, maybe millions in historic preservation grants and encouraged families, like
the one who restored two old homes, to take advantage of tax benefits and reinvest in
their properties. Committee Member Warnicke stated this was in the 1980s and he
remember walking up 5th Avenue to Kenilworth School. Committee Member Warnicke
stated back then, homes had planks over the stairs and people were rolling motorcycles
into their living rooms and that is what the neighborhood was like before it became the
Willo Neighborhood. Committee Member Warnicke stated we saved that neighborhood
and saved others which helped create the city that people now want to walk through
and now they want to tear it all down and build fourplexes. Committee Member
Warnicke stated he could not be more livid, and he is going to do everything he can to
stop it.

Chair Montaño Searles reminded everyone that the item under discussion is part of
the timeline presented earlier in the meeting and explained that the matter went to the
Planning Commission for information only on September 4 and it is scheduled for the
Planning Commission with a recommendation on October 6, and then it will go before
city’s website and navigate to the public meetings section under the City Clerk’s page
for more information and also welcomed continued public participation, noting that if
individuals want to make their voices heard, that is the place to do so and thanked
everyone for their comments and reiterated that today’s item was for information only.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 797
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 798
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 16, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle Housing
(MH) Overlay District; and amend various other sections
of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms and to ensure
proper application of related state requirements related to
Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms.
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms. Sanchez
Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does not adopt
regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed without any
zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties designated
historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where middle
housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by displaying
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments.

Questions from the Committee:

Kristine Morris asked for clarification regarding new subdivisions and homeowner
associations. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that homeowner associations can add restrictions
to prohibit middle housing.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 799
Estrella Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 16, 2025
Page 2

Dustin Thrower stated that the homeowner associations would not exist until the entire
subdivision was established. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if the developer built a single-
family house on an established middle housing lot, then the owner would have to
circumvent the regulations established by the homeowner’s association. Mr. Thrower
voiced his confusion on how homeowner associations can prohibit middle housing. Ms.
Morris added that someone who purchases a home with a homeowner association is
typically buying into more restrictions.

Chair Parris Wallace noted that this type of development will not be required to come to
the committee for recommendation.

Romona Burris asked if this was just another strategy to increase housing within the City
on top of already establish policy like the Housing Phoenix Plan. Chair Wallace
confirmed.

Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if anyone had any additional questions, they could contact
her or send an email to the email address provided.

Ms. Burris voiced concern about how this would affect neighborhoods such as Coronado
and if residents would lose their properties. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if someone
owned their property, it was their decision if they wanted to convert their lot to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that they would still have to meet all the development
standards and if the property is historic, then it would have to go through the Historic
Preservation Office first.

Marcus Ceniceros asked if this would only apply to one mile from downtown. Ms.
Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the only way this would occur in
Estrella was if there were any new subdivisions of 10 acres or more and if an applicant
rezoned their property to add the overlay district.

Chair Wallace noted that a lot of housing projects have been approved and asked what
would happen to those projects. Mr. Thrower added that it would depend on the acreage.
Chair Wallace noted an approved housing project with a lazy river. Ms. Sanchez Luna
noted that that proposal was for multifamily residential.

Ms. Burris asked if historic neighborhoods are in danger. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
they had voiced some concerns. Ms. Burris stated that this type of housing was bound to
happen. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that proposed middle housing projects had to be
compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that
middle housing could be one two-story house with one family on the first floor and one
family on the second floor. Chair Wallace voiced her excitement and approval and noted
that Estrella would like to see more housing.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 800
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle
Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms and to
ensure proper application of related state requirements
related to Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms.
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms. Sanchez
Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does not adopt
regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed without any
zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties designated
historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where middle
housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by displaying
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments.

Questions from the Committee:

Carlos Ortega asked if all the other major cities were affected by the bill. Ms. Sanchez
Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that she was unaware of the exact
regulations that other cities will be implementing.

Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen asked if the text amendment would eventually expand

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 801
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 8, 2025
Page 2

beyond the one-mile radius around downtown. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that if a
proposed development wanted to provide the ability for middle housing, then they would
have to rezone the site to add the overlay.

Linda Abegg asked for more information regarding the boundary and asked if that was
implemented by the House Bill or the city. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the House Bill
stated that it had to apply within one mile of downtown and that the City determined that
Phoenix’s downtown was the area zoned Downtown Code. Ms. Abegg asked for more
information regarding parking. Ms. Abegg is asked if a fourplex was built, would the
development be required to have eight parking spaces. Ms. Sanchez Luna note that
she would have to confirm. Ms. Abegg stated that her concern was private streets and
subdivisions that prohibit on-street parking. Ms. Abegg asked if HOA’s are exempt. Ms.
Sanchez Luna noted that HOA’s can prohibit middle housing but would confirm.

Co-Vice Chair Jensen stated that this was accessory dwelling units on steroids. Mixen
Rubio-Raffin added that this would mean separate addresses and utilities.

Ms. Rubio Raffin was surprised that this came from the State Legislature but hoped
that this would allow more individuals to buy their own homes.

Ms. Abegg understood the frustration of the residents that this would affect and
wondered how this would relate to Proposition 207.

Chair Stephanie Hurd noted that it would change the neighborhood.

Ms. Abegg asked how staff would track on-street parking. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted
that she would have to follow up regarding the parking inquiry.

Juanita Darby noted that she used to live in a duplex, and she still had her own
driveway and backyard.

Chair Hurd added that some diversity would be good, but that the Laveen character
called for large-lot single-family homes. Ms. Darby noted an existing subdivision with
large lots in Laveen.

Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen stated that the city has been built with primarily single-
family neighborhoods and noted that that this type of development would be more
appropriate in lots built to accommodate middle housing.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin added that businesses in high-density neighborhoods are more
successful than those in rural areas and could create a higher demand for street
enhancements and pedestrian amenities.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 802
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2025
Proposal Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised
Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a Middle
Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms
and to ensure proper application of related state
requirements related to Middle Housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and
were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Members Melissa Acevedo and Victoria Stahl entered during these items
bringing quorum to 12.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms.
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms.
Sanchez Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does
not adopt regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed
without any zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties
designated historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example
where middle housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the
presentation by displaying the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for
comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 803
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y


Questions from the Committee:
Warren Norgaard asked if the overlay district would apply to the downtown area. Ms.
Sanchez Luna displayed the map and noted that it would apply to the pink area
around downtown.

Saundra Cole voiced her concern for the historic neighborhoods and added that she
did not want these areas to be negatively affected. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that all
historic neighborhoods would still be subject to review by the Historic Preservation
Office. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if the City did not add any parameters, then
middle housing would be allowed without any limitations or development standards.

Chair Gene Derie stated that if someone requested to demolish a historic house, they
would have to petition the Historic Preservation Office for approval and to remove the
historic structure. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the Historic Preservation Office does
review any properties that are either designated or eligible for historic designation.

Chair Derie announced that this presentation was for information only and that the
committee would not be voting on either the rezoning case or the text amendment.
Vice Chair Chris Demarest asked if the companion cases would return to the Village
Planning Committee (VPC) for a recommendation in the upcoming months. Ms.
Sanchez Luna clarified that both cases will not return to the VPC and displayed the
proposed timeline noting the dates for the Planning Commission hearing and the City
Council hearing.

Vice Chair Demarest noted that it was odd that the House Bill would require middle
housing one mile from downtown if that is where many of the historic houses are
located. Chair Derie added that all municipalities with a population of 75,000 or
higher would be required to allow middle housing. Chair Derie added that cities such
as Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, and Chandler are all required to permit middle housing.
Vice Chair Demarest stated that all those cities had historic houses within one mile
of their designated downtown and that he would have liked to have a vote on the
companion cases.

Andrea Ramirez asked if the Villages that were directly affected would be allowed to
vote on the companion cases. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that they would not be
voting.

Mike Weber asked who established the parameters. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the House Bill established the one-mile radius. Mr. Weber clarified that he would like
to know the development standards for middle housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed
the single-family lot example and noted that middle housing would still be required to
meet all required development standards such as lot coverage, building setbacks, and
projections. Mr. Weber asked about height. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that in a
single-family zoned lot, the maximum height is two stories or 30 feet and that any
middle housing development in a single-family lot would be permitted to be as tall as
two stories or 30 feet.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 804
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y


Vice Chair Demarest stated that most neighborhoods within the one-mile buffer did
not have an established homeowner’s association.

Alvin Battle asked what was considered downtown. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed
the map and noted the grey area that was zoned Downtown Code. Chair Derie
provided the street boundaries for downtown and the one-mile buffer.

Ken DuBose asked what each case would accomplish. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated
that the text amendment case Z-TA-1-25-Y would modify the Zoning Ordinance to
allow the development standards for middle housing and the rezoning case Z-3-25-4-
7-8 established the overlay district.

Ms. Ramirez asked if a developer could convert a lot of commercial properties to
middle housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified that the only way it would apply to
Maryvale was if there were any new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or more built
or if a property was rezoned.

Public Comment:

None

Committee Discussion:

Mr. Weber voiced his displeasure for all the palm trees in the pictures. Chair Derie
and Mr. Weber noted that palm trees provide no shade and require a lot of water.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 805
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related
state requirements related to Middle Housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 8 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 9 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the
State Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not
apply to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not
exempt under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design
review procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing
demolition restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to
allow two-story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical
building setback exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same
zoning development standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage,

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 806
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

setbacks, height, projections, building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano noted that
the text amendment includes revisions so accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are only
permitted on a lot with one primary dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of
different types of middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require
the City to allow subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the
City is not proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by
existing property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-
in provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous
acres or more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the
subdivision without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano
concluded with the timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional
resources, and key takeaways.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Kylie Kennelly asked why the State legislature restricted
requiring fire sprinklers. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is probably more of an
expensive requirement that multifamily residential development typically triggers. Mr.
Zambrano added that the Phoenix building code has recently been updated and was
following this legislation. Mr. Zambrano stated that the walls between units would still
be required to be fire-rated.

Committee Member Will Manion asked if the opt-in provision for new subdivisions of
10 acres or more has to be 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision or if it could be
less than 20 percent. Mr. Zambrano responded that it has to be 20 percent.

Chair Julie Read stated that there is a big concern with the historic districts
surrounding Downtown Phoenix and the threat this legislation has to historic homes.
Chair Read stated that there is a historic preservation group that will be trying to get
the State legislature to address this in the next legislative session. Chair Read
suggested that individuals reach out to their respective representative if this topic is
important to them.

Mr. Zambrano added that the State bill does not change existing design review
requirements for historic properties or demolition restrictions for eligible historic
properties.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

Committee Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 807
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 17, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related
state requirements related to Middle Housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle joined the meeting during this item bringing the
quorum to 9 members present.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state
legislation, details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the
Middle Housing Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a
summary of the timeline for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITEE

Committee Member Bill Adams asked what the Legislature’s rational was for
passing the bill. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not want to speak for the State
Legislature but for the last several years, the Legislature has been trying to address
the housing affordability issue. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that in 2024, the State Legislature
passed another bill which required municipalities to adopt regulations relating to
Accessory Dwelling Units by January of 2025 and that the Middle Housing Bill
required adoption by January of 2026.

Committee Member Jim Larson asked if the law applies to currently vacant lots or
when a property becomes available on the market allowing the owner to then
demolish the property and construct a four-plex on the property. Mr. Kuhfuss asked if

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 808
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

the question was directed towards properties located within the pink polygon.
Committee Member Larson confirmed that was the case. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that it
was his understanding that a property owner could demolish the site and construct a
four-plex and that there is no provision that requires it be owner-occupied. Committee
Member Larson stated that it was his understanding that the effect of the bill was to
render Historic Preservation areas null and void to allow a developer to demolish a
house to build a four-plex. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he was not 100% familiar with the
nuances of Historic Preservation and that it was his understanding that certain
protections remain in place for properties that lie within a historic neighborhood
including a waiting period prior to demolition, and a requirement that the new building
fit the neighborhood.

Committee Member Matthew Knapp asked if on new subdivisions is the developer
required to construct middle housing on the 10% of lots that were earmarked as such.
Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the threshold was 20% not 10% and that the law requires the
lots to be earmarked but there is no requirement for the developer to exercise that
right.

Committee Member Patrick Edwards asked for clarification that if he owned a
house within the pink polygon, his neighbor could demolish the neighboring house
and construct middle housing. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that was the case.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked if the property was deed-
restricted, would that still be the case. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that deed restrictions are
private agreements between property owners and that Middle Housing would not
supersede that agreement. Committee Member Sommacampagna asked for clarity on
the Central Business District. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he was not sure how the statute
defined the Central Business District, but the City of Phoenix has defined the
Downtown Core as the basis for determining the one-mile buffer. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that there were other municipalities where the Central Business District was not
aligned with their downtown area.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 809
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related
state requirements related to Middle Housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 7 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 8 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation
Adrian Zambrano provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections,
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 810
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key
takeaways.

Questions from the Committee
Committee Member Anna Sepic asked why the lots with the MH Overlay District in a
new subdivision 10 acres or more would be allowed to be dispersed randomly
throughout the subdivision. Committee Member Sepic stated that the lots that have the
MH Overlay District should be located adjacent to each other. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the State law did not specify how to disperse the MH-zoned lots within a
subdivision. Committee Member Sepic asked if the City is asking for feedback on how it
should be implemented. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City is taking comments and
feedback, but the City must still comply with the State law so there are some limitations
on changes that can be made. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff could take the comment
and look into it.

Committee Member Robert Goodhue stated that there have been certain subdivisions
in the past that restricted lots to one-story along certain exterior boundaries of the
subdivision in order to not affect other adjacent one-story properties. Committee
Member Goodhue asked if the lots zoned for middle housing within a subdivision could
similarly be restricted. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law states that the City
cannot restrict middle housing to less than two stories. Mr. Zambrano added that if the
lots within a subdivision along a certain exterior boundary were restricted to one-story,
then the lots zoned for middle housing would have to be placed elsewhere within the
subdivision. Mr. Zambrano added that certain areas of a lot do not allow two stories,
such as in the rear yard of the lot where projections are allowed.

Committee Member Jennifer Hall asked why the Village Planning Committees are
hearing these items for information only. Mr. Zambrano responded that these cases are
to comply with State law, so the City is only having these cases voted on at the two
required public hearings for Planning Commission and City Council.

Committee Member Toby Gerst stated that this State requirement seems very
onerous.

Committee Member Sepic stated that it looks like it would be at almost 100 percent lot
coverage. Mr. Zambrano responded that the maximum lot coverage allowed for single-
family residence districts is 50 percent, so lots within the MH Overlay District would still
have to comply with the maximum lot coverage allowed. Mr. Zambrano added that an
additional 10 percent lot coverage is allowed for attached shaded structures or
accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Mr. Zambrano clarified that part of the text

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 811
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

amendment includes revisions that would only allow ADUs on lots with one primary
dwelling unit on the lot.

Committee Member Robert Gubser asked for clarification that ADUs cannot be placed
on a lot with a duplex or triplex. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that
ADUs would only be allowed on a lot with one primary dwelling unit on the lot.

Committee Member Sepic asked if someone could buy a lot with a single-family home,
demolish it, and build a fourplex on the lot by-right. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is
within the MH Overlay District within one mile of downtown, or on a lot zoned with the
MH Overlay District within a new subdivision 10 acres or more, then it would be allowed
by-right. Committee Member Sepic asked why the City chose downtown where there
are historic homes. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State Legislature stated that the
law applies within one mile of downtown, and the area zoned as Downtown Code states
in the code that this area shall be known as “downtown”. Mr. Zambrano stated that this
boundary is the adopted downtown area.

Committee Member Goodhue asked for clarification that any new subdivision of 10
acres or more is citywide. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that for these
subdivisions it would only apply to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision.
Committee Member Goodhue asked if the units have to be owner occupied or if they
can be rentals. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law states that the City cannot
require owner occupancy.

Committee Member Sepic stated that the majority of homes within one mile of
downtown are historic properties. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law does not
take away existing design review requirements for historic properties, so they would still
have to go through that process.

Public Comments
None.

Staff Response
None.

Committee Discussion
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 812
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of
related state requirements related to Middle Housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Will Holton joined the meeting during this item, bringing the quorum
to five members.

Agenda Item 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 813
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections,
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key
takeaways.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Eileen Baden thought it was interesting that the State said that
the City could not require any structures to contain a fire sprinkler.

Vice Chair Scott Lawrence asked if this requirement is only for the City of Phoenix.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the restrictions on implementation within the State law
apply to all cities and towns that the State law is applicable to. Mr. Zambrano added that
there was a recent update to the Phoenix building code that was passed. Mr. Zambrano
stated that they were also following this legislation and made the updates to the building
code accordingly. Mr. Zambrano stated that the walls between the units would still have
to be fire-rated walls.

Committee Member Baden asked for clarification that the City could still require one
off-street parking space per unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Committee Member Ozzie Virgil asked if homeowners associations (HOAs) could
restrict middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs could restrict it in new
subdivisions, but within subdivisions of 10 acres or more, at least 20 percent of the lots
have to be zoned to allow middle housing, in order to comply with the State law.
Committee Member Virgil stated that he does not believe the airport exclusion area is
because of the noise and is instead because of potential airplane crashes. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the City discourages residential within this area because it is
so noisy from airplanes.

Chair Cotton asked if the State law would apply to Anthem, which is not a City. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the State law would apply to any city or town with a
population of 75,000 or more. Chair Cotton asked for clarification that the west side of
Anthem is within the City of Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair
Cotton stated that there are multifamily residential condominiums that were built behind
the Goodwill along Interstate 17.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that they are townhomes.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 814
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

Mr. Zambrano stated that they could have been developed under a certain
development option in a single-family residence district that allows townhomes.

Committee Member Baden stated that it could be zoned for commercial as well.

Committee Member Will Holton asked how a population of 75,000 or more is defined.
Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be based on the census data available for the
city or town.

Committee Member Baden asked what the population is in the City of Phoenix. Mr.
Zambrano responded that it is 1.6 million.

Chair Cotton stated that the census includes children of all ages.

Committee Member Holton asked if the images are real-life examples of what to
expect. Mr. Zambrano responded that the images are graphics from the Opticos
Design Missing Middle Housing book. Committee Member Holton expressed concern
with access for emergency personnel. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be treated
the same as a single-family home. Mr. Zambrano added that the State said that the City
cannot require fire sprinklers for middle housing but there would still be fire-rated walls
between units.

Chair Cotton asked for clarification that there is nothing that the City can do since the
City has to comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that the intent is to reduce housing costs since developers
would be able to build more units on a lot.

Committee Member Holton asked if property taxes would be increased for the
homeowner of the original home. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the units would still all be on one lot.

Committee Member Baden asked about accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Mr.
Zambrano responded that the text amendment would also update sections of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to only allow ADUs on a lot with only one primary dwelling
unit.

Vice Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that middle housing would still be allowed
outside of the one-mile radius from Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded that
citywide, middle housing will be allowed on 20 percent of the lots within any new
subdivision of 10 acres or more. Vice Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that it would
not be allowed anywhere else throughout the city. Mr. Zambrano responded that it
would not be allowed by-right. Mr. Zambrano stated that if a new subdivision less than
10 aces wants to have middle housing and is outside of the one-mile radius from
Downtown Phoenix, or if an existing subdivision wants to build middle housing, then
those subdivisions can request to rezone to the MH Overlay District through the public
hearing process.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 815
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

Committee Member Holton asked if the State law would allow tents or recreational
vehicles as dwelling units. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would have to be a fixed
structure. Mr. Zambrano stated that there are established definitions in the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance. Committee Member Holton asked if modular homes would be
acceptable as middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are certain design
review requirements for modular homes. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment
will also update a section of the Pheonix Zoning Ordinance to require design review for
middle housing. Committee Member Holton asked if middle housing would still have to
figure out how to tap into the existing water and sewer lines. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively, noting that the Water Services Department would still review each site and
would require certain improvements, if necessary, when going through the plan review
and permitting process.

Committee Member Baden asked if the developers of subdivisions of 10 acres or more
are required to build middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that 20 percent of the
lots within a new subdivision of 10 acres or more are required to be zoned to allow
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano stated that the developer can choose to not build middle
housing on the lots zoned with the MH Overlay District and can choose to build single-
family homes on those lots instead.

Committee Member Holton asked if there is any precedent for middle housing. Chair
Cotton responded that when he stayed in Los Angeles, he rented a duplex. Chair
Cotton added that growing up in New Hampshire, there were multiplexes everywhere.
Chair Cotton stated that Phoenix is one of the only bigger places he has seen that does
not allow it. Committee Member Holton asked if middle housing is a trend.

Committee Member Baden responded that middle housing is historical.

Chair Cotton stated that middle housing has been around forever, but Phoenix has
only allowed single-family homes.

Committee Member Virgil stated that Oklahoma has a lot of middle housing.

Chair Cotton stated that Florida also has middle housing.

Committee Member Holton stated that this State law seems like it is full of problems,
but he does not know what other cities have encountered. Mr. Zambrano responded
that in Arizona, most cities and towns have only allowed single-family zoning.
Committee Member Holton asked for clarification that this would be new to Arizona. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that in the past, developers were still able to build middle
housing in Phoenix, as long as it was zoned for multifamily.

Mr. Zambrano responded that the difference with this law is that the duplex, triplex, or
fourplex would be built on a single-family zoned lot.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 816
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that a typical developer would likely locate all the MH-
zoned lots together within a subdivision.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

Committee Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 817
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Proposal Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
address Middle Housing as required by Arizona
Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend
various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related
state requirements related to Middle Housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard together.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, began the presentation by providing background information on
House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle housing. Mr. Rogers
displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and
townhomes. Mr. Rogers noted that middle housing must be compatible in scale, form,
and character with single-family houses. Mr. Rogers summarized the middle housing
requirements for the City. Mr. Rogers described the penalty clause that stated that if a
municipality does not adopt regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be
allowed without any zoning controls or restrictions. Mr. Rogers added that properties
designated historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where
middle housing may or may not fit. Mr. Rogers concluded the presentation by displaying
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked whether developers of new subdivisions of 10 acres
or more would provide both a single-family and middle housing product. Mr. Rogers
confirmed that new subdivision of 10 acres or more could develop with both housing
products.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 9, 2025

Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez inquired whether this was a statewide
requirement. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the State law applies statewide.

Committee Member Mark Beehler asked whether the 20% middle housing in new
subdivisions was a requirement or an option. Mr. Rogers clarified that it is an option.

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for clarification on the overlay area. Mr.
Rogers displayed the overlay map and described its boundaries. Committee Member
Brownell asked if the one-mile buffer was measured from a central point in downtown.
Mr. Rogers explained that it is measured from the boundaries of the Downtown Code.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether the State had reviewed or approved the
proposed boundary. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not sure what the State has reviewed
but confirmed that the proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Law Department.

Committee Member Brownell inquired whether the proposal would allow two-story
structures in the rear setback. Mr. Rogers explained that middle housing developments
will still be required to comply with zoning standards, including setbacks, and the
proposal will not change where two stories can be built.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether a one-story single-family home could
add a second-story unit. Mr. Rogers stated that it could.

Committee Member Lee Coleman asked whether the proposal would impact Average
Lot Subdivisions. Mr. Rogers stated that the proposed changes would consolidate
subdivision options into a “Standard” option and a “Planned Residential Development”
option.

Chair Greathouse asked whether there had been any research into how many units
this proposal could add to the market. Mr. Rogers explained that research had not been
conducted, as not every lot can feasibly fit four units or would redevelop.

Chair Greathouse asked whether 20% of lots or units would be permitted to develop as
middle housing in new subdivisions. Mr. Rogers stated that it is 20% of lots.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk asked when in the process a developer would
indicate they are using the middle housing provisions. Mr. Rogers explained this would
occur during the platting stage. Committee Member Marchuk asked whether a
developer could show a single-family product during rezoning and later add middle
housing at platting. Mr. Rogers confirmed that is possible.

Committee Member Beehler asked whether the Village Planning Committee sees the
plat. Mr. Rogers stated that the VPC sees the conceptual lot layout during rezoning, but
platting occurs after that process.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 9, 2025


Committee Member Brownell asked who would own the units if a developer built four
on one lot. Mr. Rogers stated that there are no ownership restrictions and explained
that condominiums are uncommon in Arizona due to State liability laws. Committee
Member Brownell expressed concern that the proposal will not promote generational
wealth.

Committee Member Beehler stated that middle housing is unlikely to be implemented
in South Mountain, as developers may be reluctant to mix housing types and reduce
home values. Committee Member Marcia Busching stated that middle housing lots
can be clustered in one location within a subdivision and stated there is an upcoming
rezoning case with a mix of townhomes and single-family homes.

Committee Member Marchuk asked how rezoning stipulations regarding building
elevations would apply if middle housing is later designated. Committee Member
Busching explained that middle housing lots must be identified at the time of plat
recording. Mr. Rogers stated that the rezoning process is followed by the platting
process and stated he would follow up with more information.

Committee Member Busching asked why this item was presented for information only
rather than recommendation. Mr. Rogers stated he did not know but would follow up.

Committee Member Marchuk asked for clarification on the boundaries of the overlay.
Mr. Rogers explained that the proposal includes two elements: a one-mile overlay
surrounding Downtown, and a citywide provision allowing 20% of lots in new
subdivisions of 10 acres or more to develop middle housing.

Vice Chair Emma Viera asked whether a subdivision could develop middle housing
regardless of community input. Mr. Rogers stated that 20% of lots in qualifying
subdivisions may develop middle housing, but the VPC can still recommend denial of
rezoning requests. Vice Chair Viera emphasized the importance of community
involvement. Mr. Rogers responded that State law prohibits requiring a public hearing
for this provision.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether a property owner outside the overlay
could add a second story unit. Mr. Rogers clarified that the 20% rule only applies to
qualifying new subdivisions. Committee Member Busching stated a second story unit
could be added through accessory dwelling unit (ADU) process.

Committee Member Coleman asked whether a duplex could be developed on an
existing R1-6 lot. Mr. Rogers stated that it is only permitted within the overlay or in
qualifying new subdivisions. Committee Member Busching noted that an ADU could
be built.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-1-25-Y
September 9, 2025

Committee Member Marchuk referenced a development with a single large lot and
asked if the proposal could increase its density. Mr. Rogers stated that the proposal
only applies to new subdivisions.

Committee Member Brownell asked who reviews ADUs. Mr. Rogers stated that
ADUs are reviewed by the site planning team and clarified that middle housing
developments under this proposal may not include ADUs, as they are multifamily.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether someone with property in the overlay
could build another home. Mr. Rogers stated that an additional unit may be possible if
development standards allow it.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether middle housing could be used as short-
term rentals. Mr. Rogers stated that he believes there are no restrictions on short-term
rentals. Committee Member Brownell asked what restrictions exist for short-term
rentals. Mr. Rogers stated that a notice to neighbors may be required.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.

None.




ATTACHMENT D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
OCTOBER 6, 2025

ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-TA-1-25-Y (Companion Case Z-3-25-4-7-8) (Middle Housing)
Request: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address Middle Housing as
required by Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating a
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various other sections
of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify terms and to ensure proper
application of related state requirements related to Middle Housing, as
follows: Section 202 (Definitions), Section 507 Tab A (Guidelines for
Design Review), Section 608 (Residence Districts), Section 609 (RE-35
Single-Family Residence District), Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family
Residence District), Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence
District), Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District), Section
613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District), Section 614 (R-2
Multifamily Residence District), Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence
District), Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District), Section 617
(R-4 Multifamily Residence District), Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily
Residence District), Section 619 (Residential R-4A District—Multifamily
Residence—General), Section 622 (Commercial C-1 District—
Neighborhood Retail), Section 623 (Commercial C-2 District—
Intermediate Commercial), Section 624 (Commercial C-3 District—
General Commercial), Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise
and High Density District), Section 701 (Bulk Regulations), Section 702
(Off-Street Parking and Loading), Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences,
and Walls), Section 710 (Hillside Development), Section 1203 (Land
Use Matrix, Downtown Code), Section 1205 (Frontage Elements,
Downtown Code), Section 1303 (Transect Lot Standards, WU Code),
Section 1306 (Land Use Matrix, WU Code), and Section 1307 (Parking
and Loading Standards, WU Code).
Proposal: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address recent changes to
state statute regarding missing middle housing (ARS 9-462.13)
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department, Christopher
DePerro

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 9/29/2025 Information only.
Alhambra 9/30/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 9/9/2025 Information only.
Central City 9/8/2025 No quorum.




Deer Valley 9/16/2025 Information only.
Desert View 9/2/2025 Information only.
Encanto 9/8/2025 Information only.
Estrella 9/16/2025 Information only.
Laveen 9/8/2025 Information only.
Maryvale 9/10/2025 Information only.
North Gateway 9/11/2025 Information only.
North Mountain 9/17/2025 Information only.
Paradise Valley 9/8/2025 Information only.
Rio Vista 9/9/2025 Information only.
South Mountain 9/9/2025 Information only.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in
Exhibit A of the Staff Report.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-1-25-Y, as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A of the Staff Report. Commissioner Jaramillo seconded that
motion.

Commissioner Matthews proposed a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to deny Z-TA-1-25-Y. Vice-
Chairman Boyd seconded that motion. The SUBSTITUE MOTION failed by a vote of 3-5
(Odegard-Begay, Gorraiz, James, Jaramillo, Busching). The commissioners then voted on the
original motion.

Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-1-25-Y, as shown in
the recommended text in Exhibit A of the Staff Report.

Maker: Gorraiz
Second: Jaramollo
Vote: 6-2 (Matthews, Sorenson)
Absent: Hu
Opposition Present: Yes.

Findings:

1. This text amendment is quite extensive due to the need to apply development
regulations consistently for both single-family housing and middle housing, in addition to
making sure that middle housing is permitted where required. All of the revisions
proposed are directly related to changes needed to allow middle housing as required by
A.R.S. Section 9-462.13.

2. The proposed text amendment will create a Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District;
revise various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with the
requirements of Section 9-462.13, Arizona Revised Statutes; and revise various
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to correctly clarify and cross-reference the zoning
ordinance terms and provisions which were updated for compliance with the
requirements of the new state law.




Staff-proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as follows:

ction 2Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as follows:

***
Building Envelope: The area defined on a lot in which all improvements must be made, including
grading and alterations to existing landscaping. These include, but are not limited to house,
accessory buildings, pool, patios, driveways, visitor parking, fencing, or walls. The building
envelope defines the maximum allowable construction/improvement area on the lot. The building
envelope must be identified on all design review submittals. THE AREA OF A LOT EXCLUSIVE
OF ALL REQUIRED YARDS.

***
Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which
it is situated. On lots with only single-family residential uses, the primary dwelling unit shall be
considered the main building. WHEN ONLY ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED
ON A LOT, THAT PDU SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE MAIN BUILDING. WHEN MORE THAN
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED ON A LOT, EACH BUILDING WHICH
CONTAINS A PDU SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MAIN BUILDING.

***
Building, Open, Porch: An open building used solely for ingress and egress and not for
occupancy, at least two sides of which shall be at least 50% open.

***
Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for residential
purposes for one family and containing independent living and sleeping areas, together with
independent sanitary (toilet, sink, and bath/shower) and cooking facilities. The presence of
cooking facilities conclusively establishes the intent to use for residential purposes.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section,
subordinate to the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same SINGLE-FAMILY lot. ADUs,
where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross density.

Adaptable Dwelling Units, ADAPTABLE: A dwelling unit designed to be capable of simple
conversion into an accessible dwelling unit.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed having a shared
wall and attached foundations with the primary dwelling unit. An ADU connected to the primary
dwelling unit in any other manner shall not be considered an attached ADU.




Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed with no
connection to the primary dwelling unit, except as may be explicitly permitted within the zoning
ordinance. A detached ADU may include an integrated garage, carport, or porch. Two ADUs
attached to each other, but not to the primary dwelling unit, shall each be considered a detached
ADU.

Dwelling Unit, Primary (PDU): FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, a dwelling unit that is either (1) the
only dwelling unit provided on a single-family lot, or (2) the largest dwelling unit provided on a
single-family lot when the applicable zoning regulations otherwise allow an accessory dwelling
unit or other types of dwelling units. FOR A MULTI-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT, ALL
DWELLING UNITS ARE CONSIDERED PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS.

***
Entry, Front: An arcade, gated arch, covered porch, or COVERED patio, pergola, COURTYARD,
or similar architectural enhancement which clearly delineates the location of, or AND path to, the
front door A PRIMARY ENTRANCE, AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT OF THE LOT.

***
Gross Area: The area of a lot or parcel including all dedicated streets, alleys, private accessways
roadway and/or alley easements, and canal rights-of-way. Such boundaries shall extended to the
center of existing abutting street or alley right-of-way. In the case of an existing partial dedication
or easement, the gross area shall not extend beyond what would be the centerline of the full
dedication. Further, parcels abutting: 1) a freeway; or 2) a canal right-of-way when the abutting
development has complied with the Canal Bank Design Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab
A, including landscaping of canal bank right-of-way, shall include NO MORE THAN twenty-five
feet of such right-of-way within THE gross area.

***
Guesthouse: See "Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY."

***
Landscape Setback, Average: Repealed.

***
Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more PRIMARY dwelling units are
provided., not including permitted accessory dwelling units.

***
Net Area: The area of a lot or parcel excluding all dedicated streets or alleys ROAD AND CANAL
RIGHTS-OF-WAY and roadway or alley easements. but including twenty-five (25) feet of abutting
canal right-of-way when the abutting development has complied with the Canal Bank Design
Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab A, including landscaping of canal bank right-of-way.

***




PARKING, COVERED: ONE OR MORE PARKING SPACES PROTECTED FROM THE SUN
AND WEATHER BY A CARPORT, GARAGE, ROOF OVERHANG, OR OTHER TYPE OF
ROOFED STRUCTURE.

***
Perimeter: The boundaries or boundary of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, PLATTED SUBDIVISION,
OR DEVELOPMENT.

***
Planned Residential Development: A DEVELOPMENT OPTION CONSISTING OF a group of
dwelling units with common OPEN SPACE areas which are designed as an integrated functional
unit A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT and with the permissibility of potential bonus density and
considerable flexibility in the selection of building setbacks, lot areas, DWELLING UNIT TYPES,
and street configurationS as long as the public health, safety and welfare are maintained.

***
PORCH: A STRUCTURE, WITH OR WITHOUT A ROOF, THAT IS ATTACHED TO A BUILDING
AND IS AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OPEN ON THE UNATTACHED SIDE(S).

Porch, Open: See "Building, Open Porch".

***
Primary Entrance: A ground floor entrance to a commercial lobby or suite that is open to the
public during business hours, or an THE MAIN/VISITOR entrance to a SHARED residential
courtyard, unit, or lobby OR A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. Emergency, service and storage
room entrances are not a primary entranceS.

***
Projection: Any element or embellishment attached to a structure for environmental protection or
architectural enhancement which does not support any portion of the structure. ANY PORTION
OF A PERMITTED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE MAIN BUILDING
AND EXTENDS FROM THE BUILDING ENVELOPE INTO A REQUIRED YARD OR SETBACK.
A PROJECTION IS CONSIDERED “OPEN” WHEN ALSO MEETING THE DEFINITION OF
“OPEN BUILDING”.

***
Residential Density: The number of dwelling units divided by the gross acres of the legally
described development area.

***
Setback, Landscaped, Average: The averaging of a required setback to encourage variation
along a single continuous plane of a building, perimeter wall or street frontage.

***




SETBACK, GARAGE DOOR / CARPORT ENTRY: THE REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN THE STREET AND COVERED PARKING. THIS DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THE GARAGE DOOR OR CARPORT,
UNLESS THE PROPERTY HAS AN EASEMENT DEDICATED ON THE FRONT OF THE
PROPERTY FOR A SIDEWALK OR TRAIL, IN WHICH CASE THE DISTANCE SHALL BE
MEASURED FROM THE LOT SIDE OF THE EASEMENT TO THE FACE OF THE GARAGE
DOOR OR CARPORT.

SETBACK, LANDSCAPE: A SETBACK WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING
IMPROVEMENTS: LIVE PLANT MATERIALS SUCH AS TREES, SHRUBS, AND
GROUNDCOVERS WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM; SIDEWALKS; REQUIRED
DRAINAGE FACILITIES; ENTRY MONUMENTS; SIGNS; PUBLIC ART INSTALLATIONS, AND
WALLS AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THIS ORDINANCE. PARKING AND
MANEUVERING IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN A LANDSCAPE SETBACK EXCEPT FOR
APPROVED STREET AND DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS.

***
Shade Structure: A structure, such as a pergola, arbor, or open COVERED porch, which is
designed and used for protection OF OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS from the sun and which
contains at least HAS A MINIMUM OF one (1) side which is at least fifty 50 percent (50%) open.

***
STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT: THE TYPE OR CLASS OF STREET ON WHICH THE
FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT MUST ABUT.

***
STREET, PERIMETER: ANY PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY WHICH FORMS
THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF A SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. THIS DEFINITION
DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, UNLESS
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ALSO A NAMED STREET USED FOR THE LEGAL ADDRESSES OF
ABUTTING PROPERTIES.

***
Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into three or more lots, tracts or parcels
PARCELS of which the original land area is greater than two and one half acres, Land for which
a subdivision plat has been APPROVED AND recorded IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE SECTION 32-32, OR BY MARICOPA COUNTY IF
RECORDED PRIOR TO ANNEXATION., and for any condominium, community apartment,
townhouse or similar project.

Subdivision, Average Lot: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the number of
dwelling units LOTS in a development rather than by minimum lot size. SEE “PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”.




Subdivision, Conventional: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the density
provisions within each zoning district, and by development standards related to lot width, the
management of stormwater, the provision of infrastructure requirements and constraints related
to the property topography or configuration. SEE “SUBDIVISION, STANDARD”.

Subdivision, Planned Residential Development: See "Planned Residential Development".

SUBDIVISION, Single-Family Infill (SFI) Development: A type of single-family development
consisting of townhouses and a limited number of detached dwelling units. Perimeter standards
are defined and potential bonus density and design flexibility allow for quality individual property
ownership within a larger development. A SUBDIVISION APPROVED AND DEVELOPED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.

SUBDIVISION, STANDARD: A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE STANDARD OPTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT. A SUBDIVISION PLAT SUBTITLED “A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION”,
“SUBDIVISION OPTION”, OR HAVING NO SUBTITLE SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED A
STANDARD SUBDIVISION.

Subdivision, Zero Lot Line: A subdivision in which the main building may be constructed without a
side yard.

***
TRACT: A PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED WITHIN A SUBDIVISION WHICH IS NOT
CONSIDERED A LOT AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS. A
TRACT MAY BE DEVELOPED ONLY WITH SUBDIVISION AMENITIES, DRAINAGE
FACILITIES, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPE, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AS SPECIFICALLY
PERMITTED FOR THE TRACT IN THE DEDICATION STATEMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION
PLAT.

***
Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground upward
except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal distance from a
building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted projects PROJECTIONS, to
the property line opposite such building line in the side or rear yards, or to the street right-of-way
or easement in the front yard; provided, however, that where a future width line is established by
the provisions of this ordinance for any street bounding the lot, then such measurement shall be
taken from the line of the building to such future width line.

***




Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A (Guidelines for Design Review) to read as follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines indicated with
the markers (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced in the same manner
as indicated in Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be
treated as (R).

***

C. Subdivision and Single-Family Detached RESIDENTIAL LOT Design Review.

***

8. Single-Family Detached SUBDIVISION DIVERSITY Design Review. New
single-family detached dwelling units, lots having a single duplex or triplex,
manufactured homes, and modular homes shall be subject to design review
SUBDIVISIONS HAVING AT LEAST TEN PERCENT OF LOTS EQUAL TO
OR LESS THAN 65 FEET IN WIDTH, AND HAVING DETACHED SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; AND MANUFACTURED AND/OR MODULAR
HOME SUBDIVISIONS REGARDLESS OF LOT WIDTH, ARE SUBJECT
TO DESIGN REVIEW DIVERSITY GUIDELINES 8.1 THROUGH 8.4, as
follows (R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where ten percent or more of
the lots are equal to or less than 65 feet in width shall incorporate
Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

(b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or parcel of
65 feet in width or less, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section
8.5. This requirement includes lots with a single duplex or triplex
when not located in a subdivision subject to Section 507 Tab
A.II.C.8(a).

(c) Dwelling units on lots zoned or designated HP are exempt from the
provisions of Design Guidelines Section 8.5, so long as the plans
are reviewed and approved through historic preservation prior to
issuance of any building permits.




(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot width,
shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

The design guidelines in each of the following sections (subdivision design, housing
design, garage treatment, and community safety) must be satisfied in one of two
ways. The first method, called the standard approach, is to meet each of the design
guidelines as written in the following tables. The second method, called the
alternative approach, allows consideration of creative design solutions on a section
by section basis, as long as the intent of that section has been met. Either method
may be used for all or some of the following sections. For example, an applicant
may choose the standard approach for the subdivision design and garage
treatment sections and the alternative approach for the housing design and
community safety sections or the standard approach may be used for all four
sections. Whether the alternative approach is acceptable will be determined by the
design advisor of the Planning and Development Department.

Diversity: The goal of diversity is to provide a variety of subdivision and housing
designs which lend visual interest and distinctive character and identity to the
community. This goal is addressed in two subsections, subdivision design and
housing design.

8.1. Subdivision Design. Provide subdivision designs which address
the goal of diversity by incorporating these or substantially
equivalent design characteristics: 1) Vary the building’s relationship
to the street, 2) Vary the driveway orientation or location, 3) Vary the
relationship between buildings, and 4) Vary street orientation.

Design Guidelines: All are required (R*), unless otherwise noted.

***

8.5. Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these individual unit
design standards is to ensure a minimum level of design quality for
detached single-family dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes. For information on relief from
requirements (R) and (R*), and presumptions (P), refer to Section
507.C of the Zoning Ordinance.

(a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered parking
space located in a garage or under a carport. (R)




(b) The front yard, excluding areas approved for vehicle access,
should be landscaped with the following elements: (P)

(1) A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater,
drought resistant, accent tree.

(2) A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs.

(3) Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

(4) An irrigation system.

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.

(c) Required covered parking shall not be located more than ten
feet closer to the front property line than the front entry. (R*)

Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in front
of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential character
and compatibility with surrounding residences is negatively
impacted.

(d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, nondecorative corrugated metal and fencing made
or topped with razor, concertina, or barbed wire. (R*)

(e) Development of lots with more than one dwelling unit should
provide a single, common access drive to parking areas. (P)

Rationale: Shared access and common parking minimize
unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the streetscape.
Common parking areas also reduce the paved area of a site.

(f) All dwelling units should provide the following architectural
design elements: (P)




(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of the
building.

(2) Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building.

(3) Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or single
doors.

(4) Materials such as untextured concrete, unfinished
block, steel panels, and shiny or highly reflective
detailing should not be used as a predominant
exterior material.

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood pride
and visual interest in residential architecture.

(g) Garage doors facing the public street and attached to the
primary dwelling unit should not exceed 50 percent of the
building width. (P)

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic focus of
a house; they should complement and appear subordinate to
the main structure. This is particularly important if a duplex or
triplex is constructed.

(h) A front entry shall be provided that faces and is visible from
the street, and includes an architectural feature to call
attention to it (such as a porch, entry patio, stoop,
awning/canopy, courtyard, or archway). For lots having more
than one dwelling unit, a minimum of one unit shall comply
with this requirement. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade adds
to the residential character of new dwelling units and
provides eyes on the street.

(i) Manufactured homes shall provide the following additional
architectural design elements:




(1) Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall be
used as a predominant exterior material. (P)

(2) The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of 3/12
for units 28 feet or less in width and be covered with
shingles, tile or metal, excluding aluminum. (R*)

(3) A minimum 50-square-foot recessed entry or covered
porch shall be provided along the front entry of the
building. (R*)

(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors that
are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P)

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest finished
grade. (R*)

(6) The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood pride
and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.

Section 507 Tab A, II.C.9 Residential Lot Design Review
9. RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW. THE FOLLOWING DESIGN
REVIEW REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE
65 FEET OR LESS IN WIDTH AND HAVE FOUR OR FEWER PRIMARY
DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT, AND ANY LOT HAVING A
MANUFACTURED OR MODULAR HOME, WITH THE FOLLOWING
EXCEPTIONS:

a. THE LOT IS WITHIN AN APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
(SFI) SUBDIVISION;

b. THE LOT IS SUBJECT TO SECTION II.C.8 (SUBDIVISION
DIVERSITY DESIGN REVIEW); OR




c. THE LOT IS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION,
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS.

9.1 ALL DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT SHALL EXHIBIT A DESIGN
SCALE, FORM, AND CHARACTER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
(P)

RATIONALE: NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD RESPECT THE
DESIGN AND CHARACTER OF EXISTING ESTABLISHED
NEIGHBORHOODS, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS
PROVIDED ON A LOT. BUILDING MATERIALS SHOULD MATCH
OR COMPLEMENT THE MATERIALS USED ON EXISTING
HOMES IN THE VICINITY.

9.2 THE FRONT YARD, EXCLUDING AREAS APPROVED FOR
VEHICLE ACCESS, SHOULD BE LANDSCAPED WITH THE
FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: (P)

(a) A MINIMUM OF ONE, TWO INCH CALIPER OR GREATER,
DROUGHT RESISTANT, ACCENT TREE.

(b) A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE GALLON OR GREATER,
DROUGHT RESISTANT SHRUBS.

(c) DUSTPROOFED WITH GROUND COVER, TURF, ROCK,
DECOMPOSED GRANITE, OR EQUIVALENT MATERIAL
AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

(d) AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

RATIONALE: LANDSCAPING CONTRIBUTES TO AN
ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT, PROVIDES SHADE, AND
CONTRIBUTES TO NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY.

9.3 A MINIMUM OF ONE PRIMARY ENTRANCE SHALL BE
PROVIDED WHICH FACES AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
(R*)




9.4 FOR TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, WINDOWS, BALCONIES (WITH
DOORS FOR ACCESS), OR DECKS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON
THE FRONT FAÇADE FOR A MINIMUM OF ONE-QUARTER OF
THE BUILDING WIDTH. (R*)

9.5 EACH DWELLING UNIT SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE COVERED
PARKING SPACE. (R*)

9.6 FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL BE
NO WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED
FRONT SETBACK. (R*)

9.7 GARAGES AND CARPORTS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED MORE
THAN TEN FEET CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE
THAN THE CLOSEST PRIMARY ENTRANCE. (R*)

9.8 WALLS, FENCES, AND ENCLOSURE MATERIALS SHALL NOT
INCLUDE CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH, OR WITHOUT, PLASTIC
OR METAL SLATS, SHEETING, NONDECORATIVE
CORRUGATED METAL AND FENCING MADE OR TOPPED WITH
RAZOR, CONCERTINA, OR BARBED WIRE. (R*)

9.9 MANUFACTURED HOMES SHALL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING
ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS:

(a) MATERIALS SUCH AS WOOD, HARDBOARD, BRICK
VENEER, HARDIPLANK, STUCCO, OR HORIZONTAL
VINYL SIDING SHALL BE USED AS A PREDOMINANT
EXTERIOR MATERIAL. (P)

(b) THE EXPOSED ROOF PITCH SHALL BE AT A MINIMUM
OF 3/12 FOR UNITS 28 FEET OR LESS IN WIDTH AND BE
COVERED WITH SHINGLES, TILE OR METAL,
EXCLUDING ALUMINUM. (R*)

(c) A MINIMUM 50 SQUARE FOOT FRONT ENTRY SHALL BE
PROVIDED ALONG THE STREET SIDE OF THE
BUILDING. (R*)

(d) PERMANENT ACCESS TO THE FRONT ENTRY SHOULD
BE CONSTRUCTED WITH MATERIALS AND COLORS
THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE DWELLING UNIT. (P)




(e) A MASONRY STEM WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED UNDER
THE DWELLING UNIT WITH NO MORE THAN SEVEN
INCHES OF EXPOSED FOUNDATION MEASURED FROM
HIGHEST FINISHED GRADE. (R*)

(f) THE EXPOSED MASONRY STEM WALL COLOR SHOULD
BE COMPATIBLE TO THE DWELLING UNIT. (P)

***

ection 608. Residential Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residential Districts.

A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide areas of
the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these areas from the
distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate association with
nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential, limited nonresidential uses,
and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are designed to promote the creation
and maintenance of areas in which individuals or families may pursue residential activities
with reasonable access to open space, and streets or roads, in a setting which is not
negatively impacted by adjacent uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions
placed upon them to limit impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a
public hearing through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative
impacts to surrounding residential uses.

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 619 and 635 are
designed to establish the character of new residential development and also to preserve
the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to new development,
these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the development and
improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 32 of
the City Code.

This section applies to the residential districts in Sections 609 through 619, in addition to
Section 635 (Planned Area Development) when specified.

***




B. Applicability. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS RE-35, R1-18, R1-
10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A (SECTIONS 609 THROUGH 619),
AND WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS FOR OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS.
of Development Options. The development of any parcel of land shall be in accordance
with the standards contained in any one development option as contained in Sections 609
through 619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not being further subdivided and
located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610) shall be in
accordance with the requirements for the standard subdivision development option (a), as
contained in Sections 609 and 610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a subdivision
platted prior to May 1, 1998, not being further subdivided, and located in the R1-10 through
R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619), development shall be in accordance with
the requirements of the conventional subdivision option as contained in Sections 611
through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected development
option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was subdivided or
developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in accordance with the
standards under which the initial subdivision or development occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1, 1998,
shall be considered as follows:

1. Residential development with a site plan approved in accordance with Section 507
shall be considered under the planned residential development option.

2. Residential development with an approved subdivision setback exhibit shall be
considered under the average lot development option if located in the RE-35
through R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

3. Any other prior residential development shall be considered under the development
option selected when the property was subdivided.

A use permit shall not be required for new development on previously subdivided property
or property on which there is an approved site plan if the new development is in
conformance with the provisions of this ordinance.

***




Section 608.D Residential Districts Land Use Matrix
D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

Table 608.D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
Accessory Dwelling
(ac) pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
Unit (ADU)
(ac) Guestroom(s) pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3
Duplex np np pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4
Triplex np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5
Single-Family Attached pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc6 np
SUBDIVISION up5 up5 up5 up5 up5 up6
Multi-Family np np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Residential
(ac) np np np np np np np pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8
Convenience Market
Off-Site Manufactured Home
np np np np np up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 np
Developments
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in the table.




Section 608.E Land Use Conditions

E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted one
single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling units,
unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

a. When a lot has no more than one single-family detached primary dwelling,
two ADUs are permitted in addition to the primary dwelling unit. A third ADU
may be permitted when at least one of the ADUs qualifies as affordable
housing and the net lot size is a minimum 43,560 square feet. However,
lots having a duplex or triplex, single-family attached units or any multi-
family dwelling units are not permitted any ADUs.

b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

3. Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling unit may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

4. Duplex.

a. Single-Family Lots. One duplex is permitted per lot when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of the
minimum size required by the applicable density to permit two dwelling
units.

b. Multi-Family Lots. Duplexes are permitted when allowed by the underlying
zoning district and development option. The lot must be of the minimum
size required by the applicable density to permit the number of dwelling
units proposed.

4. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-FAMILY LOT WHEN
THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NO REQUIREMENTS FOR
INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

5. Triplex.




a. Single-Family Lots. One triplex is permitted per lot when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of the
minimum size required by the applicable density to permit three dwelling
units.

b. Multi-Family Lots. Triplexes are permitted when allowed by the underlying
zoning district and development option. The lot must be of the minimum
size required by the applicable density to permit the number of dwelling
units proposed.

5. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION. SFI SUBDIVISIONS PER THE
PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I ARE PERMITTED WHEN
LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND BY USE
PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE AREAS DEPICTED IN FIGURE
608.I.1.

6. Single-Family Attached Dwelling Unit. One single-family attached dwelling unit is
permitted per single-family lot when allowed by the underlying zoning district and
development option.
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION—R-4A ONLY. SFI SUBDIVISIONS
PER THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I ARE PERMITTED
WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND BY USE
PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE AREAS DEPICTED IN FIGURE
608.I.1. EXCEPT FOR THE PERMITTED DENSITY, THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR THE R-4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

7. Multi-Family Dwelling Units. Multi-family dwelling units are permitted when allowed
by the underlying zoning district and development option EXCEPT WHEN THE
DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION.

***

35. Off-site manufactured home developments are permitted with use permit approval
per Section 307, and subject to the development regulations provided in Section
608.F.7 608.J.


Section 608.F (General Development Regulations)
F. Special GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Regulations.

1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map AND THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 714, FUTURE WIDTH LINES, unless exempted by this section.




2. In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width prescribed for
that street by the street classification map, and amendments thereto, has been
dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street from which side the required
width of dedication has been made shall be deemed to have frontage on a street.

3. No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of less than
that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or collector street or
25 feet for all other streets except for single-family attached development individual
dwelling units UNLESS THE LOT IS PART OF A PLATTED SUBDIVISION WHICH
WAS APPROVED WITH MODIFIED STREET STANDARDS.

a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option or for
development built under a planned area development district, a minimum of
16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when all of the following
conditions are met:

(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.

(2) There are no restrictions to public access to the street.

(3) Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back of
curb.

(4) Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

(5) All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

(6) The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.

4. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

5. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the following
listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are
displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.

b. Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

c. Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned by
persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the premises.




d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or ultimate
use on other than the subject premises.

6. Single-Family Infill (SFI). Single-family infill development regulations may be
applied in zoning districts where the SFI development option is offered, but only
when the development falls within the infill development district identified in the
general plan, or with use permit approval within the following areas located outside
of the infill development district:

Figure 608.F.6. Single-Family Infill Development Areas




a. The SFI development option does not eliminate any redevelopment area,
special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur between the
requirements of the SFI development option and redevelopment areas,
overlay zoning districts, special planning districts, and specific plans, the
requirements of the overlay zoning districts, special planning districts,
redevelopment areas or specific plans shall apply.

b. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the SFI development option.

c. Dwelling Units. The SFI development option is intended primarily for single-
family attached dwelling units; however, up to 20 percent of the units in a
development may be single-family detached dwelling units to allow for
variety and efficiency of design.

(1) Any provided detached dwelling units shall comply with the same
development regulations applicable to that SFI development.

d. Design Requirements.

(1) Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a feature
such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

(2) Required covered parking spaces shall not front on perimeter street
rights-of-way.

(3) Individual unit rear yards shall not abut perimeter street ROW or an
adjacent perimeter street landscape area.

(4) Attached dwelling units constructed in a row shall not exceed a total
length of 200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide open area.

e. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.

(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street rights-of-
way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape tract or
community-maintained landscaping abutting the street, except when
within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street rights-of-
way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape tract or
community-maintained landscaping abutting the street.




(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way and
adjacent to a single-family residential district or historic preservation
designated property must provide a minimum ten-foot landscape
setback. Walls/fences up to six feet high within private rear yards
may be provided within the perimeter setback so long as the
required landscape is still provided.

(4) Trees shall be provided in required landscape setbacks at a
minimum rate of 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings, as
approved by the PDD landscape architect, subject to the following:

(a) Fifty percent of the required trees shall be minimum one-and-
one-half-inch caliper at the time of installation.

(b) Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be minimum
two-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the time of
installation.

(c) Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be minimum
three-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the time of
installation.

(5) A minimum of five five-gallon shrubs per tree shall be provided.

f. Open Space Regulations. The only walls/fences allowed within
required common area open space are required pool security fences and
other necessary security fences, as approved by PDD.

g. Parking Requirements. Section 702 applies to SFI development, except
where specifically modified by this section.

(1) Within the Infill Development District: one parking space per dwelling
unit must be provided that is covered or located within a garage.

(2) Within the applicable SFI area that is not located within the infill
development district: two parking spaces per dwelling unit must be
provided that are covered or located within a garage.

(3) The required spaces for each dwelling unit must be located on the
same lot as the unit for which they are provided.

(4) A minimum 0.25 additional unreserved guest parking space
per dwelling unit must be provided within any SFI development.




h. Alley Access and Maneuvering.

(1) All maneuvering for on-site parking must be located on private
property and not in public ROW.

(2) Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is permitted
within the infill development district.

(3) Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is permitted
applicable area outside of the infill development district if all three
conditions are met, as follows:

(a) The site is not across the alley from either a single-family or
historic preservation zoning district;

(b) Alley access is specifically approved as part of the use
permit hearing; and

(c) All necessary technical appeals have been approved.

i. Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required setbacks along
perimeter street rights-of-way.

j. Signage is subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1, Single-
Family Residential.


7. Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments. Off-site manufactured home
development is subject to use permit approval in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts, in
addition to zoning districts indicated in Section 608.D; and subject to the following
additional development regulations:

a. The provisions of Section 703.B do not apply to off-site manufactured home
developments.

b. These regulations apply to development of a single lot or parcel, not to be
further subdivided.

c. Placement for each off-site manufactured home shall be provided as
follows:




(1) There shall be a minimum of 20 feet between off-site manufactured
homes and ten feet between awnings and canopies. All annexes or
structural additions shall be considered part of the off-site
manufactured home.

(2) There shall be at least 40 feet between off-site manufactured homes
on opposite sides of a private accessway.

(3) No off-site manufactured home, annex or structural addition shall be
closer than eight feet to any private accessway or private drive.

d. Each off-site manufactured home space shall have private outdoor living
space of at least 150 square feet. The dimension of this space shall be at
least 15 feet in width.

e. At each occupied off-site manufactured home space, there shall be an
enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other bulky items convenient to
the space with a storage capacity of at least 150 cubic feet.

f. All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall be landscaped
and maintained in accordance with the approved development review
documents required under Section 507.

g. Screening the perimeter of an off-site manufactured home development by
a wall or other approved material may be required as a condition of use
permit approval.

h. There shall be a network of pedestrian walkways connecting off-site
manufactured home spaces with each other and with development facilities
and amenities.

i. If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened storage yard or
yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Such storage yards shall have a
minimum of 60 square feet of storage space for each off-site manufactured
home space in the development and shall be located so as to not detract
from surrounding properties. All boats and recreational vehicles shall be
parked in the storage yard.

j. Each off-site manufactured home shall (1) be affixed permanently to the
ground or (2) have skirting around its perimeter to screen its wheels and
undercarriage.

k. All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio antenna system
shall be underground.




l. Not more than 15 percent of the spaces in any one off-site manufactured
home development shall be developed or used for recreational vehicles.

m. Development of off-site manufactured home communities shall be under the
planned residential development option applicable in the underlying zoning
district.

n. Private drives may be used for access to each off-site manufactured home.

o. There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of the off-site
manufactured home development dedicated or reserved as usable common
open space land. Common open space lands shall be clearly designated on
the plan as to the character of use and development but shall not include:

(1) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an individual
tenant or owner; nor

(2) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way; nor

(3) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas; nor

(4) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the site; nor

(5) Golf courses.

Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure permanent retention of
open space land area resulting from the application of these regulations,
either by private reservation for the use of the residents within the
development or by dedication to the public, or a combination thereof.

Section 608.G (Development Options)
G. Reserved.
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. EACH RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RE-35, R1-18,
R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A) PROVIDES DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, DIFFERENT
SETS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (“DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS”) ARE
PROVIDED WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

a. DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL OR LAND SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET FORTH
FOR A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION.




b. A DEVELOPMENT OPTION FOR A PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED
ESTABLISHED IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE:

(1) A PRELIMINARY OR FINAL SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED
FOR A PROPERTY AND IS STILL CONSIDERED VALID PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 507.K.6.

(2) THE PROPERTY HAS STRUCTURES FOR WHICH BUILDING
PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
FOR A DEVELOPMENT OPTION WHICH WAS VALID AT THE
TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.

(3) THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A PLATTED AND RECORDED
SUBDIVISION (ALSO SEE SUBSECTION G.2 BELOW).

c. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR
A PROPERTY, SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION UNLESS
USE PERMIT APPROVAL PER SECTION 307 IS OBTAINED, WITH THE
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

(1) THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REZONED PER SECTION 506
(BASE ZONING ONLY; DOES NOT INCLUDE HEIGHT OR
DENSITY WAIVERS, SPECIAL PERMITS, OR ADDITION OF
OVERLAY DISTRICTS); OR

(2) THE PROPERTY IS A PREVIOUSLY PLATTED SUBDIVISION
AND THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION IS TO BE REPLATTED; OR

(3) THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND IS BEING PLATTED AS A
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION; OR

(4) THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A MASTER PLAT SUCH AS: STATE
PLATS; AGRICULTURAL/RANCHING SUBDIVISIONS; PLATS
USED TO MAKE DEDICATIONS AND CREATE DEVELOPMENT
BLOCKS WITHIN MASTER-PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; OR
OTHER ATYPICAL SUBDIVISION PLATS AS APPROVED BY THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.




d. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NEVER BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR A
PROPERTY, ANY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION MAY BE
CHOSEN.

2. PLATTED SUBDIVISION LOTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OPTION STATED IN THE TITLE OF THE
PLAT, AS FOLLOWS:

a. DEVELOPMENTS HAVING AN APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN OR
APPROVED SETBACK EXHIBIT ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY INSTEAD CHOOSE TO APPLY
THE STANDARDS APPROVED PER THE PLAN/EXHIBIT, IF DIFFERENT
FROM CURRENT STANDARDS. HOWEVER, ANY AMENDMENT TO A
FINAL SITE PLAN OR SETBACK EXHIBIT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS AND STANDARDS.

b. PLATS TITLED “STANDARD”, “SUBDIVISION”, “CONVENTIONAL”, OR
HAVING NO REFERENCE TO A DEVELOPMENT OPTION SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE STANDARD
OPTION.

c. PLATS TITLED “AVERAGE LOT” OR “PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION.

d. PLATS TITLED “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED” OR “SINGLE-FAMILY
INFILL” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, IN
ADDITION TO THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.

e. PLATS TITLED “PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 635 WHEN ZONED PAD-1
THROUGH PAD-15. OTHER PLATS WITH THE SAME TITLE BUT NOT
ZONED PAD-1 THROUGH PAD-15 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, OR THE BASE REGULATIONS OF THE
DISTRICT IF THE PRD OPTION IS NOT OFFERED.

f. FOR OTHER PLAT TITLES NOT IDENTIFIED WITHIN THIS SECTION,
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL DETERMINE THE APPLICABLE
DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND REGULATIONS.




3. STANDARD OPTION. WHEN A ZONING DISTRICT PROVIDES MULTIPLE
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE
STANDARD OPTION ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TABLE FOR THAT DISTRICT. IF ONLY ONE SET OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS PROVIDED FOR A ZONING DISTRICT,
THOSE STANDARDS SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE STANDARD OPTION.

4. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION. WHEN THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS UTILIZED FOR A
SUBDIVISION AND/OR DEVELOPMENT, A SITE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED,
REVIEWED, AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 507. THE
SITE PLAN SHALL ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PRD OPTION.




Section 608.H (Bonus Provisions)
H. Reserved. BONUS PROVISIONS.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION DENSITY BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, SINGLE-FAMILY
SUBDIVISIONS IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4,
AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY AS SHOWN IN TABLE
608.H.1 BY PROVIDING SITE AMENITIES AND ENHANCEMENTS FROM TABLE
608.H.2, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY PERMITTED BY THE DISTRICT:



TABLE 608.H.1
PERMISSIBLE DENSITY BONUS BY DISTRICT

0.05 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
RE-35 AND R1-18
EARNED

0.10 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R1-10, R1-8, AND R1-6
EARNED




0.25 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R-2, R-3, AND R-3A
EARNED

0.50 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R-4 AND R-5
EARNED




TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT

INCREASE COMMON LANDSCAPED SETBACK
10 PTS. 1. ADJACENT TO PERIMETER STREET TO A MINIMUM 20
FEET.

PROVIDE A MAJOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A
MINIMUM 1,500 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
10 PTS./FEATURE 2.
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

PROVIDE A MINOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A
MINIMUM 1,000 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
5 PTS./FEATURE 3.
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

STREETSCAPE

PROVIDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS SEPARATED FROM
THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 5-FOOT WIDE PLANTING
AREA. PLANTING AREA SHALL BE PLANTED WITH
20 PTS. 4. MINIMUM 24-INCH BOX SIZE TREES PLANTED AT A
RATE OF 1 PER LOT, TURF OR 5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS
FOR EVERY TREE AND GROUND COVER; AND
SUPPLIED WITH AN ADEQUATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

PROVIDE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION FOR ALL
FRONT YARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH
10 PTS. 5.
SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF 1 24-INCH BOX TREE,
5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER.

RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 5 BONUS POINTS FOR
5 PTS. 5A.
EACH ADDITIONAL TREE (MINIMUM 15-GALLON).

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR DRIVEWAYS AND ON-LOT
SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST
10 PTS. 6.
OF CONSISTENT ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE
FEATURES, E.G. INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS,
BORDERS.




TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE STREETS. PARTIAL
10 PTS. 7. TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL
10 PTS. 8. TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.,
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.

2 PTS./FEATURE 9. PROVIDE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLANDS.

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET FURNITURE
5 PTS. 10. PACKAGE CONSISTING OF CUSTOM STREET SIGNS,
BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES.

PROVIDE CUSTOM STREETLIGHT STANDARDS
5 PTS. 11.
AND/OR FIXTURES.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREETSCAPE PLAN,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR OTHER MEANS
WHICH SHALL ADDRESS VISUAL INTEREST AT A
PEDESTRIAN SCALE; RHYTHM, FORM AND MASSING;
25 PTS. 12. AND RELATIONSHIP OF UNITS TO EACH OTHER FOR
THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. SUCH PLAN SHALL
PROVIDE ELEVATIONS, COLOR OPTIONS, AND LIMIT
WHICH MODEL(S)/ELEVATION(S) MAY OR MAY NOT
BE SITED ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

PROVIDE HOUSE PLANS WHICH DEMONSTRATE AN
25 PTS. 13. ENHANCED LEVEL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS
APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR.

PROVIDE PREMIUM GRADE EXTERIOR MATERIALS
10 PTS. 14. AND FINISHES AS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN
ADVISOR.




TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMON OPEN SPACE, SUCH
2 PTS. 15. THAT EACH ADDITIONAL 1% OF COMMON OPEN
SPACE EARNS 2 BONUS POINTS.

PROVIDE MAJOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
10 PTS./FEATURE 16. AMENITIES (E.G., TENNIS COURTS, POOL,
COMMUNITY MEETING ROOM).

PROVIDE MINOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES (E.G., BIKEPATH OR MULTI-USE TRAIL
WHICH PROVIDE AN INTERNAL LINKAGE WITHIN THE
5 PTS./FEATURE 17.
DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS A CONNECTION TO
SIMILAR FACILITIES LOCATED AT THE PERIMETER
OF THE SITE).


2. MULTI-FAMILY OPEN SPACE BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL OPTION, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE R-2, R-3, R-
3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS
FOR EACH TWO PERCENT OF COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED IN
ADDITION TO ANY OTHER OPEN SPACE REQUIRED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT.

a. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SHALL
DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF COMMON OPEN SPACE AS PART OF
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN SPACE SHALL NOT
INCLUDE:

1. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

2. VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

3. PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS BETWEEN OR IN
FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN GENERAL, AREAS RESERVED FOR
THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL TENANTS.

4. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES
OF THE SITE.




5. GOLF COURSES.

b. IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. IN ORDER TO OVERCOME A
DEMONSTRATED DEFICIENCY IN THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING FOR PERSONS
OF LOW INCOME, INCENTIVES ARE ESTABLISHED TO FOSTER THE
PROVISION OF SUCH HOUSING.

a. APPLICABILITY. ALL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING
DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608
PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

b. DENSITY BONUS.

(1) ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR EVERY TWO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, PROVIDED THAT THE
OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED 10
PERCENT BEYOND THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE
ALLOWED.

(2) A DENSITY BONUS AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ANY DISTRICT AND
MAY BE IN ADDITION TO A DENSITY BONUS EARNED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 608.H.1 or 608.H.2.

c. OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS WITHIN A
PROJECT SHALL BE AS APPROVED BY THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

Section 608.I (Single-Family Infill Subdivisions)
I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the development
standards tables for each district:

1. Minimum lot dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and where
specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided by the
gross area of the site.

a. Density Bonus Points. Additional density may be granted by earning density
bonus points by providing site enhancements from the table below, as
follows:




(1) Single-family detached development in the R1-10 through R1-6
districts (Sections 611 through 613) may earn increased density of
0.1 du/ac for each ten density bonus points earned when also using
the planned residential development option, up to the maximum
density allowed by the district.

(2) Single-family detached development in the R-2 through R-4A
districts (Sections 614 through 619) may earn increased density of
0.275 du/ac for each five density bonus points earned when also
using the planned residential development option, up to the
maximum density allowed by the district. However, at least half of
the bonus points used to achieve densities in excess of 7.5 du/ac
must be from the architectural design bonus point category.



Bonus Points Enhancement Category
PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT
10 pts. 1. Increase common landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter street to 20' avg./15' minimum.

10 pts./feature 2. Provide a major entry feature with a minimum 1,500
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter
landscaping and right-of-way).

5 pts./feature 3. Provide a minor entry feature with a minimum 1,000
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter
landscaping and right-of-way).

STREETSCAPE

20 pts. 1. Provide detached sidewalks separated from the curb
by a minimum 5'-wide planting area. Planting area
shall be planted with minimum 24"-box size trees
planted at a rate of 1 per lot, turf or 5 5-gallon shrubs
for every tree and ground cover; and supplied with
an adequate irrigation system.

10 pts. 2. Provide landscaping and irrigation for all front yards
within the development which shall include a
minimum of 1 24"-box tree, 5 5-gallon shrubs, and
ground cover.

5 pts. 2a. Receive an additional 5 bonus points for each
additional tree (minimum 15-gallon).




10 pts. 3. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for
driveways and on-lot sidewalks. Partial treatment
shall consist of consistent accent treatment for all
like features, e.g. intersections, crosswalks, borders.

10 pts. 4. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private streets. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

10 pts. 5. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private sidewalks. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.,
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

2 pts./feature 6. Provide landscaped median islands.

5 pts. 7. Provide a comprehensive street furniture package
consisting of custom street signs, bus shelters and
benches.

5 pts. 8 Provide custom streetlight standards and/or fixtures.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

25 pts. 1. Provide a comprehensive streetscape plan,
development agreement or other means which shall
address visual interest at a pedestrian scale; rhythm,
form and massing; and relationship of units to each
other for the entire subdivision. Such plan shall
provide elevations, color options, and limit which
model(s)/elevation(s) may or may not be sited on
individual lots.

25 pts. 2. Provide house plans which demonstrate an
enhanced level of architectural design as approved
by the design advisor.

10 pts. 3. Provide premium grade exterior materials and
finishes as approved by the design advisor.

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

2 pts. 1. Provide additional common area, such that each
additional 1% of common area earns 2 bonus points.

10 pts./feature 2. Provide major private recreational amenities (e.g.,
tennis courts, pool, community meeting room).




5 pts./feature 3. Provide minor private recreational amenities (e.g.,
bikepath or multi-use trail which provide an internal
linkage within the development as well as a
connection to similar facilities located at the
perimeter of the site).


b. Additional Common Area/Open Space. Additional density may be granted
by providing additional common area above any minimum requirements as
follows:

(1) Qualifying developments (listed below) may earn:

(a) A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic
common area; or

(b) A one percent density bonus for each two percent of
improved common area.

(c) The Planning and Development Department shall determine
the adequacy of both basic and improved common areas as
part of the development review process. Open space shall
not include:

(i) Public right-of-way.

(ii) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(iii) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front
of units; or, in general, areas reserved for the
exclusive use of individual tenants.

(iv) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of
the site.

(v) Golf courses.

(d) In no case shall the density of the development exceed the
maximum density allowed by the district.

(2) Developments qualifying for the additional common area/open space
density bonus are as follows:




(a) Single-family development in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning
districts (Sections 609 and 610), when also using the
planned residential development option.

(b) Single-family attached development in the R1-10 through R-
4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619), when using
the planned residential development option.

(c) Single-family development in the R-2 through R-4A zoning
districts (Sections 614 through 619), when using the single-
family infill development option.

(d) Multi-family development in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning
districts (Sections 611 through 619), when using the planned
residential development option.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the perimeter
of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which are created by a
subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of Section 507. These
standards shall not apply in the following circumstances: when contiguous
developments are to be developed using the same development option with the
same perimeter standards and are on the same preliminary plat or are platted
concurrently; when the perimeter of a development is contiguous to a permanent
open space, such as a natural wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the
depth of which is at least forty feet; or when the development was properly platted
prior to September 13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural grade
which measurement shall be as in chapter 2.

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2.

7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be used
and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in accordance with
the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.




8. Allowed Development: The development options tables provided in Sections 609
through 619 indicate the only types of residential development permitted under
each development option and associated development regulations. The complete
list of all permitted uses, including accessory and temporary uses, is provided in
Section 608.C.

9. Required review: Development review in accordance with Section 507 of this
ordinance, and subdivision review in accordance with chapter 32 of the Phoenix
City Code when new lots are created.

10. Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any parcel or
subdivided lot within a development.




***


I. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS.

1. APPLICABILITY. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL REGULATIONS OF THIS
SECTION SHALL APPLY TO SUBDIVISIONS MEETING ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

a. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT ZONED HP OR HP-L, NOR DESIGNATED AS
HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORICAL PLACES.

b. THE SUBDIVISION IS ZONED R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2,
C-3, DTC, OR WU CODE;

c. THE SUBDIVISION EITHER UTILIZES THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION, OR THE DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY
STATES THAT AN SFI SUBDIVISION MAY BE DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;




d. THE SUBDIVISION IS EITHER LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN, OR
THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT”
SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS OBTAINED USE PERMIT
APPROVAL; AND

e. FOR EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS RECORDED PRIOR TO 2024 ONLY: THE
PLAT HAS THE SUBTITLE “A SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
SUBDIVISION”; “A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION”; “SINGLE-
FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION”; OR ANOTHER
ANALOGOUS SUBTITLE AS DETERMINED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR.




FIGURE 608.I.1
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AREAS




2. SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND REDEVELOPMENT AREAS,
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, AND
SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONING
DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR
SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

3. SFI DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

a. THE FOLLOWING TABLE PROVIDES MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED
UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION:


TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISIONS

LOT WIDTH
(1) 20 FEET
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
(3) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(4) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MAXIMUM)

INDIVIDUAL LOT
(5) SETBACKS NONE
(MINIMUM)

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT ENTRY
(6) THREE FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.c

PERIMETER STREET, FRONT: 10 FEET
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER STREET, SIDE: 15 FEET
PERIMETER BUILDING
(8) PERIMETER STREET, REAR: PER SECTION
SETBACKS
(MINIMUM) 608.I.4.d
OTHER PERIMETER: 10 FEET




TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISIONS

10 FEET, REQUIRED TO BE
PERIMETER STREET
COMMUNITY/ASSOCIATION MAINTAINED. MAY
(9) LANDSCAPE SETBACKS
BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM)
BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) PER SECTION 608.I.3.b
(MAXIMUM)

LOT COVERAGE INDIVIDUAL LOTS: NO MAXIMUM
(11)
(MAXIMUM) OTHER PARCELS/TRACTS: 50%

COMMON OPEN SPACE
(12) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
(13) PER SECTION 608.I.7
REQUIREMENTS

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE
OTHER APPLICABLE
(14) DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507 TAB A
REGULATIONS:
BONUS: SECTION 608.H

b. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

(1) IN ALL DISTRICTS, THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM
HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT
FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.

(2) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED R-5, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT IS 48 FEET.

(3) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DTC, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL
BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE CHARACTER AREA.

(4) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED WU CODE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
SHALL BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE TRANSECT.




(5) IN ALL OTHER DISTRICTS, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT
IS 40 FEET WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER, WITH A ONE-FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
PERMITTED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE-FOOT SETBACK TO
A MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 48 FEET.

c. ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERLYING
ZONING DISTRICT ARE APPLICABLE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
MODIFIED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.

4. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.

a. INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL
PROVIDE A FRONT ENTRY THAT IS EITHER ELEVATED, DEPRESSED
OR INCLUDES A FEATURE SUCH AS A LOW WALL TO ACCENTUATE
THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE. (R*)

b. REQUIRED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT FRONT ON OR BE
ACCESSED FROM A PERIMETER STREET. (R*)

c. FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL BE NO
WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE
AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. (R*)

d. NO REAR PROPERTY LINE OF ANY LOT IN AN SFI SUBDIVISION
SHALL ABUT EITHER A PERIMETER STREET OR AN ASSOCIATED
PERIMETER STREET LANDSCAPE SETBACK AREA. (R*)

e. ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW SHALL NOT
EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET WITHOUT HAVING A
MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN AREA. (R*)

5. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

a. TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) FIFTY PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT THE TIME OF
INSTALLATION.




(2) TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-TRUNKED TREES AT
THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(3) TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-TRUNKED TREES
AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

b. A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED. (T)

6. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI DEVELOPMENT,
EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THIS SECTION.

a. A MINIMUM OF ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT AS THE UNIT FOR WHICH IT
IS PROVIDED.

b. COVERED PARKING SETBACKS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE LARGER
THAN THE BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR THE DWELLING
UNIT.

c. A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST PARKING SPACE
PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN
ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

7. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.

a. ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE LOCATED ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (T)

b. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM A PUBLIC STREET OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY IS PERMITTED. (T)

c. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS PERMITTED
WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND
THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED
MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM PAVING STANDARDS FOR THE
ALLEY. (T)

d. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS PERMITTED
WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS “APPLICABLE
AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN
FIGURE 608.I.1, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:




(1) THE SFI SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ACROSS THE ALLEY
FROM EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HP ZONING DISTRICT. (R)

(2) THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS
APPROVED MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM PAVING
STANDARDS FOR THE ALLEY. (T)

e. INDIVIDUAL LOTS MAY FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVE, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO
ALLOW FOR SUFFICIENT MANEUVERING AND PUBLIC UTILITY
ACCESS. (T)

8. WALLS/FENCES.

a. THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN REQUIRED
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS IS 40 INCHES. (R*)

b. THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN REQUIRED
OPEN SPACE AREAS IS 40 INCHES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
REQUIRED POOL FENCES AND OTHER NECESSARY VIEW FENCES,
AS APPROVED BY PDD. (R*)

9. SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 705,
TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

Section 608.J (Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments)

J. Incentives for Affordable Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the
supply of housing for persons of low and moderate income, incentives are established to
foster the provision of such housing.

1. Applicability. All development located within a zoning district subject to the
provisions of Section 608 providing affordable housing as defined in Section 202.

2. Density Bonus.

a. One additional unit shall be allowed for every two affordable housing units;
provided, that the overall project density does not exceed ten percent
beyond that which would otherwise be allowed.

b. A density bonus awarded per this section shall apply to the maximum
density for any district and may be in addition to a density bonus earned per
the provisions of Section 608.I.2.

3. Other Requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing.




J. OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2,
AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO ZONING DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION
608.D; AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS:

1. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

2. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE LOT OR
PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.

3. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL BE
PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

a. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS AND
CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED PART OF THE OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME.

b. THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST 40 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF A PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY.

c. NO OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR STRUCTURAL
ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT FEET TO ANY PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

4. EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE PRIVATE
OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE FEET. THE DIMENSION
OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST 15 FEET IN WIDTH.

5. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE, THERE
SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD TOOLS AND
OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE WITH A STORAGE
CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 150 CUBIC FEET.

6. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED SURFACES SHALL
BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS REQUIRED UNDER
SECTION 507.

7. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME
DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL MAY BE
REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




8. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS CONNECTING
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH
DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND AMENITIES.

9. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A SCREENED
STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC.
SUCH STORAGE YARDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60 SQUARE FEET OF
STORAGE SPACE FOR EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN
THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT DETRACT
FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN THE STORAGE YARD.

10. EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL (1) BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR (2) HAVE SKIRTING AROUND ITS
PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND UNDERCARRIAGE.

11. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION OR RADIO
ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

12. NOT MORE THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY ONE OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DEVELOPED OR USED
FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

13. DEVELOPMENT OF OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES
SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION
APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

14. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME.

15. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF
THE OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED OR
RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON OPEN SPACE LAND. COMMON OPEN
SPACE LANDS SHALL BE CLEARLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE
CHARACTER OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

a. AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR BENEFIT OF AN
INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

b. DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-
WAY; NOR

c. VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE AREAS;
NOR




d. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE
SITE; NOR

e. GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE PERMANENT
RETENTION OF OPEN SPACE LAND AREA RESULTING FROM THE
APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS, EITHER BY PRIVATE
RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC, OR A COMBINATION
THEREOF.

***
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the RE-35
district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I.
REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 150' width, 175' 100' width, 125' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum area depth
and depth) 35,000 sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit 1.10 1.10 1.15; 1.32 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 40' front or rear, 20' 40' adjacent to a public
standards side street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
20' adjacent to property
line

Building setbacks 40' front, 40' rear, 20' 25' front, 50' total 25' front
side front and rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, plus an 30%, plus an additional
structures are less additional 10% for an 10% for an ADU and/or
than 20' and 1 story ADU and/or attached attached shade
in height then a shade structures. structures. Total: 40%.
maximum of 40% lot Total: 40%.
coverage is allowed.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area




Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Allowed Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
development detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to create Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
4 or more lots building setbacks

Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.


TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 150 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 175 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS)
1.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) LOTS 1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
1.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

FRONT: 25 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 40 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS REAR: 40 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) SIDES: 20 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE




TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK LOT SETBACKS SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER PERIMETER STREET: 40 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 20
SETBACK FEET
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 20 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
STREET LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM) REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING
(10) HEIGHT 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

25%, EXCEPT IF ALL
STRUCTURES ARE LESS
THAN 20 FEET AND 1
LOT COVERAGE
(11) STORY IN HEIGHT THEN 40% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
A MAXIMUM OF 40% LOT
COVERAGE IS ALLOWED.


COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
OTHER CITY CODE;
32, CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW:
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
SECTION 507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H




Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used IN THE R1-
18 DISTRICT for each district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found
in Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Illustrations of Development Options




Table 610.A
R1-18 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' 90' width, 80' depth None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum area
and depth) 18,000 sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 30' front or rear, 10' 20' adjacent to a public
standards side street(2); this area is to
be in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
15' adjacent to property
line

Building setbacks 25' front, 30' rear, 10' 25' front, 50' total 25' front
side front plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 30%, plus an 30%, plus an 30%, plus an additional
additional 10% for an additional 10% for an 10% for an ADU and/or
ADU and/or attached ADU and/or attached attached shade
shade structures shade structures structures

Total: 40% Total: 40% Total: 40%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
development detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to create Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
4 or more lots building setbacks

Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.




(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.


TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 130 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 120 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
2.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) LOTS 2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
2.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

FRONT: 25 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS REAR: 30 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE. OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE
PERIMETER
WHERE LOTS FRONT ON
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE.
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
SETBACK
REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.




TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

BUILDING
(10) HEIGHT 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

30%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR AN
LOT COVERAGE 40% TOTAL FOR
(11) ADU AND/OR ATTACHED
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
SHADE STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 40%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
OTHER CITY CODE;
32, CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW:
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
SECTION 507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District

***


B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the R1-
10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I.
REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except None, except
110' adjacent to freeway or 110' adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial


Dwelling 3.0 3.5; 4.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2)(front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- landscape setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- story), 20' (2-story);
story)
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent
to perimeter streets(2) (Does not apply
to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)




Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots • WR FDU for lots • WR FDU
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50% plus an additional 10% 50% plus an additional 10%
for an ADU and/or for an ADU and/or
attached shade structures attached shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, Section 507,
and subdivision to create 4 or and subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots




Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)


Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to
the development standards of Table 611.B.




Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot 80' width, 94' depth 60' width, 65' None
dimensions (width and depth
(Minimum area
depth)
10,000 sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 3.50 3.50 3.68; 4.20 with bonus
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards None 30' front, 25' rear, 20' adjacent to a public
10' side street(2); this area is to
be in common
ownership unless lots
front on the perimeter
public street; 15'
adjacent to property line


Building setbacks 25' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to
48' high and 4 stories


Lot coverage 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional
additional 10% for additional 10% for 10% for an ADU and/or
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or attached shade
structures.




Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


attached shade attached shade Total: 60%
structures. structures.

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area


Allowed development Single-family Single-family Multi-family plus (b)
(3)
detached and attached; plus (a)
duplex


Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots


Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 80 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
4.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) LOTS 3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
4.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B




TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE. OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE.
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
SETBACK
REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

BUILDING
(10) HEIGHT 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR AN
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ADU AND/OR ATTACHED
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
SHADE STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
OTHER CITY CODE;
32, CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW:
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
SECTION 507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District

***




B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the R1-8
district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I.
REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.



Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 4.0 4.5; 5.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-
setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- story), 20' (2-story); Property
story) line (side): 10' (1-story), 15'
(2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent
to perimeter streets(2) (Does not apply to lots
fronting onto perimeter
streets)




Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus additional 10% for 50%, plus additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached an ADU and/or attached
shade structures shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)




Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision Section 507, and subdivision
to create 4 or more lots to create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)


Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to
30' on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to
the development standards of Table 612.B.




Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot dimensio 70' width, 94' depth 50' width, 65' depth None
ns (width and depth)
(Minimum area
8,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling 4.30 4.30 4.52; 5.16 with bonus
unit density (units/gros
s acre)

Perimeter standards None 25' front or rear 10' 20' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to
be in common
ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front plus 10' front
10' and 3' side rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to
48' high and 4 stories

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional
Lot coverage
additional 10% for additional 10% for 10% for an ADU and/or
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or attached shade
attached shade attached shade structures
structures structures
Total: 60%
Total: 60% Total: 60%




Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed development Single- Single- Multi-family plus (b)
family detached(3) a family attached; plus
nd duplex (a)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per
create 4 or building setbacks Section 507
more lots

Street standards Public Public street Public street or private
street required accessway(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 70 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
5.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) LOTS 4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
5.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B




TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE. OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE
PERIMETER
WHERE LOTS FRONT ON
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE.
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
SETBACK
REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

BUILDING
(10) HEIGHT 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR AN
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ADU AND/OR ATTACHED
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
SHADE STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
OTHER CITY CODE;
32, CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW:
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
SECTION 507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District

***




B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the R1-6
district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I.
REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.



Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 5.5; 6.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-
setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-
story), 20' (2-story);
story)
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10'
landscaped setback adjacent minimum(Does not apply to
to perimeter streets(2) lots fronting onto perimeter
streets)




Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% 50%, plus an additional 10%
for an ADU and/or attached for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)




Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision Section 507, and subdivision
to create 4 or more lots to create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)


Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to
30' on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to
the development standards of Table 613.B.




Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


Planned Residential
Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot 60' width, 94' depth 40' width, 60' depth None
dimensions (width (Minimum area 6,000
and depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 5.30 5.30 5.54; 6.34 with bonus
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards None 25' front or rear 10' 20' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
15' adjacent to property
line


Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front 10' front
and 3' side plus rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to
48' high and 4 stories


Lot coverage 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional
additional 10% for an additional 10% for 10% for an ADU and/or
ADU and/or attached an ADU and/or attached shade
shade structures attached shade structures
structures
Total: 60% Total: 60%
Total: 60%




Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


Planned Residential
Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area


Allowed development Single-family Single-family Multi-family plus (b)
detached(3) and attached plus (a)
duplex


Required review Subdivision to create Subdivision with Development review per
4 or more lots building setbacks Section 507


Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
6.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) LOTS 5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
6.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B




TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE. OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE.
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
SETBACK
REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

BUILDING
(10) HEIGHT 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR AN
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ADU AND/OR ATTACHED
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
SHADE STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
OTHER CITY CODE;
32, CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW:
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
SECTION 507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H

Section 614. R-2 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

***




A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for alternate
living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of land with multiple
units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of residents
with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost, and size as
compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision, STANDARD and
planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family attached development are
intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement, variable yard requirements, more
reasonable and practical use of open spaces, staggered height limits up to three and
four stories and more standardized parking and street improvement requirements.
Bonus provisions are intended to facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill
parcels as well as unusual and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain responsibilities
which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for the overall adjacent
neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards and performance criteria. The
standards internal to a project are intended to increase livability with amenities including
landscaping, recreational facilities and project design. On the other hand the exterior
standards provide a better fit, [and] better the project and the neighborhood environs.
Criteria relating to setbacks, screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise,
maintain privacy and minimize psychological feelings to a change in development
character and avoid any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the R-2
district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I. The
single-family infill development option must meet Section 608.F.6 requirements. REFER
TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-
setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-
story), 20' (2-story);
story)
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent (Does not apply to lots
to perimeter streets(2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)




Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% 50%, plus an additional 10%
for an ADU and/or attached for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision Section 507, and subdivision
to create 4 or more lots to create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to
30' on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to
the development standards of Table 614.B.




Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development
dimensions depth (Minimum 40' width, 60' site: none.
None
(width and area 6,000 sq. depth Individual
depth) ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.


Dwelling unit 10.50; 12.00 10.50; 12.00
density with bonus with bonus
10.0 10.0
(units/gross
acre)


10' for units
20' adjacent to a fronting street
public street(2); rights-of-way;
this area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
Perimeter 25' front or rear ownership rights-of-way.
None
standards 10' side unless lots front This area is to
on the perimeter be in common
public street; 15' ownership or
adjacent to management.
property line 10' adjacent to
property line


20' front, 25' Individual unit
Building 10' front, 35'
rear, 10' and 3' 10' front lot: none
setbacks front plus rear
side




Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


3 stories or 40'
2 stories and 30'
for first 150'; 1'
for first 150'; 1'
in 1' increase to
Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' in 5' increase to
48' height, 4-
48' high and 4
story
stories
maximum(5)


50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% additional 10% additional 10% individual lot.
for an ADU for an ADU for an ADU 50% for other
Lot coverage and/or attached and/or attached and/or attached parcels or tracts
shade structures shade structures shade structures with accessory
structures
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area


Single-family
attached and
Single-family Single-family single-family
Allowed Multi-family plus
detached(3) and attached plus detached (per
development (b)
duplex (a) the provisions of
Section 608.F.6
only)


Subdivision to Subdivision with Development Development
Required review create 4 or more building review per review per
lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


Development
site: public
street, public
Public street or alley, or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit
lot: private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district,
which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback
to the maximum permitted height.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
10.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 10.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
12.0 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 10.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 10.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 12.0 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT 18 FEET FRONT OR STREET
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS. SIDE
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20
PERIMETER
FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE
BE PROVIDED AS PART OF
SETBACK
THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.




TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
FOR FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
ONE FOOT HEIGHT
BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET** INCREASE FOR EACH FIVE
(MAXIMUM)
FEET IN SETBACK
INCREASE TO MAXIMUM 4
STORIES AND 48 FEET
HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
32, CITY CODE;
OTHER 507 TAB A;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
(14) APPLICABLE MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
507 TAB A;
REGULATIONS: 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B
SFI SUBDIVISIONS:
SECTION 608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH
ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT.




Section 615. R-3 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 615. R-3 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

***
A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for alternate
living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of land with multiple
units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of residents
with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost, and size as
compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision, STANDARD and
planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family attached development are
intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement, variable yard requirements, more
reasonable and practical use of open spaces, staggered height limits up to three and
four stories and more standardized parking and street improvement requirements.
Bonus provisions are intended to facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill
parcels as well as unusual and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain responsibilities
which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for the overall adjacent
neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards and performance criteria. The
standards internal to a project are intended to increase livability with amenities including
landscaping, recreational facilities and project design. On the other hand the exterior
standards provide a better fit, [and] better the project and the neighborhood environs.
Criteria relating to setbacks, screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise,
maintain privacy and minimize psychological feelings to a change in development
character and avoid any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the R-3
district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I. The
single-family infill development option must meet Section 608.F.6 requirements. REFER
TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-
setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-
story), 20' (2-story);
story)
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent (Does not apply to lots
to perimeter streets(2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)




Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% 50%, plus an additional 10%
for an ADU and/or attached for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision Section 507, and subdivision
to create 4 or more lots to create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to
30' on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to
the development standards of Table 615.B.




Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development
dimensions depth (Minimum 40' width, 60' site: none.
None
(width and area 6,000 sq. depth Individual
depth) ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
density 15.23; 17.40 15.23; 17.40
14.5 14.5
(units/gross with bonus with bonus
acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a fronting street
public street; rights-of-way;
this area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
Perimeter 20' front, 15' ownership rights-of-way.
None
standards rear, 10' side unless lots front This area is to
on the perimeter be in common
public street(2); ownership or
15' adjacent to management.
property line 10' adjacent to
property line

25' front, 15'
Building 10' front, 30' Individual unit
rear, 10' and 3' 10' front
setbacks front plus rear lot: none
side

2 stories and 30' 3 stories or 40'
for first 150'; 1' for first 150'; 1'
2 stories and 2 stories and in 5' increase to in 1' increase to
Maximum height
30'(5) 30'(5) 48' height, 4- 48' height, 4-
story story
maximum(5) maximum(5)




Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% additional 10% additional 10% individual lot.
for an ADU for an ADU for an ADU 50% for other
Lot coverage
and/or attached and/or attached and/or attached parcels or tracts
shade structures shade structures shade structures with accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per
development
attached and attached and attached and the provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Subdivision with Development Development
Required review create 4 or more building review per review per
lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Development
site: public
street, public
Public street or alley, or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit
lot: private
accessway, or
private drive(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.




(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district,
which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback
to the maximum permitted height.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
15.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 14.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
17.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 15.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 14.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 17.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B




TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20
PERIMETER
FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE
BE PROVIDED AS PART OF
SETBACK
THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
FOR FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
ONE FOOT HEIGHT
BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET** INCREASE FOR EACH FIVE
(MAXIMUM)
FEET IN SETBACK
INCREASE TO MAXIMUM 4
STORIES AND 48 FEET
HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT




TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
32, CITY CODE;
OTHER 507 TAB A;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
(14) APPLICABLE MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
507 TAB A;
REGULATIONS: 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B
SFI SUBDIVISIONS:
SECTION 608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH
ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT.

Section 616. R-3A Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multi-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 616. R-3A Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District




A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for alternate
living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of land with multiple
units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of residents
with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost, and size as
compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision, STANDARD and
planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family attached development are
intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement, variable yard requirements, more
reasonable and practical use of open spaces, staggered height limits up to three and
four stories and more standardized parking and street improvement requirements.
Bonus provisions are intended to facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill
parcels as well as unusual and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain responsibilities
which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for the overall adjacent
neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards and performance criteria. The
standards internal to a project are intended to increase livability with amenities including
landscaping, recreational facilities and project design. On the other hand the exterior
standards provide a better fit, [and] better the project and the neighborhood environs.
Criteria relating to setbacks, screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise,
maintain privacy and minimize psychological feelings to a change in development
character and avoid any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the R-
3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I.
The single-family infill development option must meet Section 608.F.6 requirements.
REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-
setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-
story), 20' (2-story);
story)
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent (Does not apply to lots
to perimeter streets(2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)




Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% 50%, plus an additional 10%
for an ADU and/or attached for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision Section 507, and subdivision
to create 4 or more lots to create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to
30' on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to
the development standards of Table 616.B.




Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development
dimensions depth (Minimum 40' width, 60' site: none.
None
(width and area 6,000 sq. depth Individual
depth) ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
density 23.1; 26.4 with 23.1; 26.4 with
22 22
(units/gross bonus bonus
acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a fronting street
public street; rights-of-way;
this area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
Perimeter 20' front, 15' ownership rights-of-way.
None
standards rear, 10' side unless lots front This area is to
on the perimeter be in common
public street(2); ownership or
15' adjacent to management.
property line 10' adjacent to
property line

25' front, 15'
Building 10' front, 30' Individual unit
rear, 10' and 3' 10' front
setbacks front plus rear lot: none
side

3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
for first 150'; 1' for first 150'; 1'
in 5' increase to in 1' increase to
Maximum height 3 stories or 40'(5) 3 stories or 40'(5)
48' height, 4- 48' height, 4-
story story
maximum(5) maximum(5)




Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% additional 10% additional 10% individual lot.
for an ADU for an ADU for an ADU 50% for other
Lot coverage
and/or attached and/or attached and/or attached parcels or tracts
shade structures shade structures shade structures with accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per
development
attached and attached and attached and the provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Subdivision with Development Development
Required review create 4 or more building review per review per
lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Development
site: public
street, public
Public street or alley, or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit
lot: private
accessway, or
private drive(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.




(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district,
which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback
to the maximum permitted height.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
23.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 22.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
26.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 23.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 22.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 26.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B




TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20
PERIMETER
FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE
BE PROVIDED AS PART OF
SETBACK
THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET
FOR FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
ONE FOOT HEIGHT
BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET** INCREASE FOR EACH FIVE
(MAXIMUM)
FEET IN SETBACK
INCREASE TO MAXIMUM 4
STORIES AND 48 FEET
HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT




TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
32, CITY CODE;
OTHER 507 TAB A;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
(14) APPLICABLE MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
507 TAB A;
REGULATIONS: 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B
SFI SUBDIVISIONS:
SECTION 608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH
ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT.


Section 617. R-4 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 617. R-4 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District




A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for alternate
living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of land with multiple
units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of residents
with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost, and size as
compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision, STANDARD and
planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family attached development are
intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement, variable yard requirements, more
reasonable and practical use of open spaces, staggered height limits up to three and
four stories and more standardized parking and street improvement requirements.
Bonus provisions are intended to facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill
parcels as well as unusual and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain responsibilities
which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for the overall adjacent
neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards and performance criteria. The
standards internal to a project are intended to increase livability with amenities including
landscaping, recreational facilities and project design. On the other hand the exterior
standards provide a better fit, [and] better the project and the neighborhood environs.
Criteria relating to setbacks, screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise,
maintain privacy and minimize psychological feelings to a change in development
character and avoid any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the R-4
district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section 608.I. The
single-family infill development option must meet Section 608.F.6 requirements. REFER
TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-
setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-
story), 20' (2-story);
story)
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent (Does not apply to lots
to perimeter streets(2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)




Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% 50%, plus an additional 10%
for an ADU and/or attached for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision Section 507, and subdivision
to create 4 or more lots to create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to
30' on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to
the development standards of Table 617.B.




Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development
dimensions depth (Minimum 40' width, 60' site: none.
None
(width and area 6,000 sq. depth Individual
depth) ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
density 30.45; 34.80 30.45; 34.80
29.0 29.0
(units/gross with bonus with bonus
acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a fronting street
public street; rights-of-way;
this area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
Perimeter 20' front, 15' ownership rights-of-way.
None
standards rear, 10' side unless lots front This area is to
on the perimeter be in common
public street(2); ownership or
15' adjacent to management.
property line 10' adjacent to
property line

20' front, 15'
Building 10' front, 30' Individual unit
rear, 10' and 3' 10' front
setbacks front plus rear lot: none
side

3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
for first 150'; 1' for first 150'; 1'
in 5' increase to in 1' increase to
Maximum height 3 stories or 40'(5) 3 stories or 40'(5)
48' height, 4- 48' height, 4-
story story
maximum(5) maximum(5)




Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% additional 10% additional 10% individual lot.
for an ADU for an ADU for an ADU 50% for other
Lot coverage
and/or attached and/or attached and/or attached parcels or tracts
shade structures shade structures shade structures with accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per
development
attached and attached and attached and the provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Subdivision with Development Development
Required review create 4 or more building review per review per
lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Development
site: public
street, public
Public street or alley, or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit
lot: private
accessway, or
private drive(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.




(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district,
which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback
to the maximum permitted height.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
30.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 29.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
35.0 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 30.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 29.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 35.0 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B




TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20
PERIMETER
FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE
BE PROVIDED AS PART OF
SETBACK
THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET
FOR FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
ONE FOOT HEIGHT
BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 3 STORIES AND 40 FEET** INCREASE FOR EACH FIVE
(MAXIMUM)
FEET IN SETBACK
INCREASE TO MAXIMUM 4
STORIES AND 48 FEET
HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT




TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
32, CITY CODE;
OTHER 507 TAB A;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
(14) APPLICABLE MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
507 TAB A;
REGULATIONS: 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B
SFI SUBDIVISIONS:
SECTION 608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH
ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT.


Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as follows:

Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District—Restricted Commercial




A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for alternate
living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of land with multiple
units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of residents
with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost, and size as
compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision, STANDARD and
planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family attached development are
intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement, variable yard requirements, more
reasonable and practical use of open spaces, staggered height limits up to three and
four stories and more standardized parking and street improvement requirements.
Bonus provisions are intended to facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill
parcels as well as unusual and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain responsibilities
which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for the overall adjacent
neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards and performance criteria. The
standards internal to a project are intended to increase livability with amenities including
landscaping, recreational facilities and project design. On the other hand the exterior
standards provide a better fit, [and] better the project and the neighborhood environs.
Criteria relating to setbacks, screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise,
maintain privacy and minimize psychological feelings to a change in development
character and avoid any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations—Residential Uses. The following tables establishES standards to
be used in the R-5 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section 608.F.6
requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
approved by either the design
advisor or the Design Review
Committee for demonstrating
enhanced architecture that
minimizes the impact of the
garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building s Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side):
etbacks 15' (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-
setback);
story);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-
story), 20' (2-story);
story)
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent (Does not apply to lots
to perimeter streets(2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: 35', (established by Building
street side: 10'; sides: 13' Code); street side: 10'; sides:
total (3' minimum, unless 0') none (established by Building
Code)




Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV ORWV• WR FDUZLGWKV
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30'
are permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% 50%, plus an additional 10%
for an ADU and/or attached for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures shade structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision Section 507, and subdivision
to create 4 or more lots to create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to
30' on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to
the development standards of Table 618.B.




Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development
dimensions depth (Minimum 40' width, 60' site: none.
None
(width and area 6,000 sq. depth Individual
depth) ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
density 45.68;52.20 with 45.68;52.20 with
43.5 43.5
(units/gross bonus bonus
acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a fronting street
public street; rights-of-way;
this area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
Perimeter 20' front, 15' ownership rights-of-way.
None
standards rear, 10' side unless lots front This area is to
on the perimeter be in common
public street(2); ownership or
15' adjacent to management.
property line 10' adjacent to
property line

20' front, 15'
Building 10' front, 30' Individual unit
rear, 10' and 3' 10' front
setbacks front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum height 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% additional 10% additional 10% individual lot.
for an ADU for an ADU for an ADU 50% for other
Lot coverage
and/or attached and/or attached and/or attached parcels or tracts
shade structures shade structures shade structures with accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures




Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached, detached, detached, single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per
development
attached and attached and attached and the provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Subdivision with Development Development
Required review create 4 or more building review per review per
lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Development
site: public
street, public
Public street or alley, or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit
lot: private
accessway, or
private drive(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial
dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to
are ones built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.




(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district,
which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback
to the maximum permitted height.




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
45.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 43.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
52.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 45.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 43.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 52.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20
PERIMETER
FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
STREET
PERIMETER STREET. MAY
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE
BE PROVIDED AS PART OF
SETBACK
THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.




TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 4 STORIES AND 48 FEET** 4 STORIES AND 48 FEET**
(MAXIMUM)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
CITY CODE;
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
32, CITY CODE;
OTHER 507 TAB A;
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
(14) APPLICABLE MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
507 TAB A;
REGULATIONS: 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION
BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B
SFI SUBDIVISIONS:
SECTION 608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH
ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.


***

Section 619. R-4A Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 619 (Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General)
to read as follows:

Section 619. Residential R-4A District—Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence—General



***

A. Permitted Uses. Primary uses and accessory uses are permitted as indicated in the
Residential Districts Land Use Matrix, Section 608.D, plus the following:

1. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

2. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed shall be
provided.

3. Single-family infill developments, per the provisions of Section 608.F.6 and Table
617.B, R-4 Development Options, column D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the following
yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***

8. Single-family infill development must comply with all regulations applicable to SFI
development in the R-4 district except for density, which shall be permitted per
Section 619.B.1.

9. Off-site manufactured home developments, upon obtaining use permit approval,
shall comply with the R-4 standards for planned residential developments (Table
617.B, column C) except for density, which shall be permitted per Section 619.B.1.

***

Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail
Amend Chapter 6, Section 622 (Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail) to read as
follows:

Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail.

A. Purpose. The C-1, Commercial Neighborhood Retail District, is a district of light
neighborhood type retail and customer service uses designed to be compatible with each
other and nearby residential districts.

B. Reserved.




C. B. District Restrictions. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Section, the following
restrictions shall apply to this district:

1. All commercial uses are restricted to closed buildingS except parking lots and liquid
fuel pump services.

***

10. The sale of used merchandise in connection with the following permitted uses when
such used merchandise uses a floorspace having a total area of no more than five
(5) percent of the gross floor area of the establishment:

***

g. Audio and video rentals and retail sales.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-FAMILY
INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE PROVISIONS OF 608.I,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE R-5 DISTRICT.

3. ADULT DAY CARE HOME AND CENTER

4. BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

5. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

6. GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

7. NURSING HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in R1-6 if
zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential, and single-family
attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5 DISTRICT and R-4A; and in addition the
following:

***

2. RESERVED. Adult Day Care Home and Center




***

19. RESERVED. Boarding House, subject to a use permit

***

38. RESERVED. Community Residence Center, subject to a use permit

***

76. RESERVED. Group Home, subject to a use permit

***

120. RESERVED. Nursing Home, subject to a use permit

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and area
requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses and adjoining
neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General Plan for uses and
intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height, area
and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3 DISTRICT except
as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as defined in
and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION 608.J,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is designated as
residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is satisfied, the
remainder of this section shall apply.




b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average lot
subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and density
proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning district to
which the proposed single-family development is equivalent, the use shall
satisfy the development standards contained in Sections 609 through 613
for the development option and density of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate an
application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district appropriate
for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED ONLY AS
PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3 PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL APPLY WHEN
NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

***

Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial
Amend Chapter 6, Section 623 (Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial) to read
as follows:

Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-2, Commercial Intermediate District, is a district of commercial uses of
medium intensity designed to be compatible with each other and to provide for a wide
range of types of commercial activity within the district.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.

1. Except as otherwise provided, all permitted uses and storaging of materials or
supplies shall be conducted entirely within a closed building.

2. The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted uses
set forth in Section 623.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained and subject
to the following standards for the outdoor display area:

a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere along
the building except as noted in Section 623.CB.2.b;




***

9. With the exception of those instances listed above in 623.CB.7. and CB.8., no other
types of vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or displayed for sale
on-site except by a registered vehicle retail sales dealership and upon obtaining a
special permit pursuant to Section 647.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-FAMILY
INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE PROVISIONS OF 608.I,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-1 DISTRICT.

3. BOARDING HOUSE

4. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER

5. GROUP HOME

6. NURSING HOME

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in R1-6 if
zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential, and single-family
attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5, R-4A, and C-1 districts; and in addition the
following:

***

50. RESERVED. Community Residence Center.

***

126. RESERVED. Nursing Home.

***




E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and area
requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses and adjoining
neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General Plan for uses and
intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height, area
and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3 DISTRICT except
as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as defined in
and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION 608.J,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is designated as
residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is satisfied, the
remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average lot
subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and density
proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning district to
which the proposed single-family development is equivalent, the use shall
satisfy the development standards contained in Sections 609 through 613
for the development option and density of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate an
application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district appropriate
for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED ONLY AS
PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3 PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL APPLY WHEN
NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.




***

Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial
Amend Chapter 6, Section 624 (Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial) to read as
follows:

Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-3 Commercial General District, is a district designed to provide for the
intensive commercial uses necessary to the proper development of the community.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.

1. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from adjacent residential
districts. No noise, odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it exceeds the general
level of noise, odor or vibration emitted by uses outside the site. Such comparison
shall be made at the boundary of the site.

2. The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted uses
set forth in Section 624.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained and subject
to the following standards for the outdoor display area:

a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere along
the building except as noted in Section 624.CB.2.b;

***

4. With the exception of those instances listed above in 624.CB.3., no other types of
vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or displayed for sale on-site
except by a registered vehicle retail sales dealership.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-FAMILY
INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE PROVISIONS OF 608.I,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT.




D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in R1-6 if
zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential, and single-family
attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1 and THE C-2 districts; and in addition
the following, including the storage of all raw materials and finished products in connection
herewith:

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and area
requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses and adjoining
neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General Plan for uses and
intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height, area
and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3 DISTRICT except
as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Neither the Zoning Administrator nor the Board of Adjustment shall have
jurisdiction to vary the provisions of Section 624.E.1.OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION 608.J, INCLUDING USE
PERMIT APPROVAL.

e. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as defined in
and density requirements set forth in Section 618.

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is designated as
residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is satisfied, the
remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average lot
subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and density
proposed for the residential use.




c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning district to
which the proposed single-family development is equivalent, the use shall
satisfy the development standards contained in Sections 609 through 613
for the development option and density of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate an
application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district appropriate
for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED ONLY AS
PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3 PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL APPLY WHEN
NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

***

Section 632. Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High Density
District) to strike everything, and replace with the following text:

SECTION 632. MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ESTABLISH ZONING
REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 9-462.13, ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES, AS FOLLOWS:

1. ENTITLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MIDDLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO HAVE UP TO FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS PER LOT.

2. PROVIDE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR MIDDLE HOUSING.

B. APPLICABILITY.

1. THE MH OVERLAY MAY BE COMBINED WITH ANY ZONING DISTRICT WHEN
ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
632.C.

2. IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH OVERLAY CONFLICT WITH OTHER ZONING
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, THE MH OVERLAY
PROVISIONS SHALL PREVAIL, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN THIS
SECTION.

C. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL BE APPLIED TO
THE FOLLOWING:




1. A PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN REZONED WITH THE MH OVERLAY
DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506; OR

2. LOTS IN A SUBDIVISION HAVING A PLAT RECORDED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2026, WHICH MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL
CRITERIA:

a. THE SUBDIVISION IS CONTIGUOUS AND A MINIMUM 10 GROSS
ACRES IN SIZE.

b. THE SUBDIVISION HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF A PRIOR SUBDIVISION
WHICH HAS APPLIED THE MIDDLE HOUSING PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 9-462.13, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.

c. THE SUBDIVISION HAS BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, RE-35,
R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, OR C-
3.

d. FOR C-1, C-2, AND C-3 PROPERTIES ONLY: THE SUBDIVISION IS
PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION AS SET
FORTH IN SECTION 608.I.

e. THE NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED FOR APPLICATION OF THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF
FEWER THAN FIVE LOTS, ONE LOT SHALL BE PERMITTED TO HAVE
THE MH OVERLAY.

f. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF: PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT;
PHOENIX DEER VALLEY AIRPORT; AND SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT;
EACH OF WHICH IS A FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
COMMERCIALLY LICENSED AIRPORT OR A GENERAL AVIATION OR
PUBLIC AIRPORT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8486, ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES.

g. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF A MILITARY AIRPORT OR ANCILLARY MILITARY FACILITY
AS DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8461, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.

h. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ON TRIBAL LAND.




I. THE SUBDIVISION OWNER HAS REQUESTED THE CITY TO ASSIGN
THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION THROUGH
THE OPT-IN PROCEDURES PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.

D. OPT-IN PROCEDURE. PRIOR TO UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT, SUBDIVISIONS ELIGIBLE PER SECTION 632.C.2 MUST
REQUEST THAT THE CITY APPLY THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE LOTS ON
WHICH MIDDLE HOUSING SHALL BE PERMITTED, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE SUBDIVISION OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC AN
OPT-IN FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

2. CONCURRENT WITH THE OPT-IN FORM, THE SUBDIVISION OWNER SHALL
SUBMIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOTS ON WHICH THE MH OVERLAY
DISTRICT SHALL BE APPLIED.

3. CITY STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE OPT-IN FORM AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
WHEN THE REQUEST IS CONFIRMED TO BE ELIGIBLE, STAFF SHALL
PROCESS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX TO APPLY THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE ELIGIBLE
SUBDIVISION LOTS.

4. ONCE THE ZONING MAP CHANGE IS COMPLETED, THE LOTS SHALL BE
OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT UNTIL SUCH TIME
THAT THEY MAY BE REZONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506.

E. MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING
MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLY ONLY WHEN THE MH DISTRICT IS
COMBINED WITH THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-
3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, OR C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. FOR ALL OTHER
PROPERTIES, THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE BASE DISTRICT APPLY.

1. PERMITTED USES.

a. ALL USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONING
DISTRICTS, PLUS

b. MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

2. DENSITY. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS (PDU)
PROVIDED ON A LOT ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL NOT
EXCEED THE NUMBER ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING, OR FOUR PDUS,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER.




a. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SUBDIVIDED LOTS PER ACRE IS THE
SAME AS ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING AND IS NOT MODIFIED BY
THIS SECTION.

b. FOR THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, DENSITY
BONUS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.H.1.

3. SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM
HEIGHT(S) SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT
ON THE SAME PROPERTY, INCLUDING THOSE FOR PERMITTED
PROJECTIONS.

4. LOT COVERAGE. LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR THE BASE
DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

a. LOTS WITH BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-35, RE-24, OR R1-14. THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE INCREASED TO
50% WHEN ALL STRUCTURES ON THE LOT ARE ONE-STORY AND A
MAXIMUM 20 FEET IN HEIGHT.

5. PARKING AND MANEUVERING.

a. ON LOTS HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, A
MINIMUM OF TWO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED ONSITE.

b. ON LOTS HAVING TWO OR MORE PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS, A
MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED ONSITE
PER PDU.

c. MANEUVERING WITHIN A PUBLIC ALLEY SHALL BE ALLOWED WHEN
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) THE ALLEY IS A MINIMUM 16 FEET WIDE FOR THE LENGTH OF
THE BLOCK;

(2) THE ALLEY IS PAVED TO THE TWO NEAREST EXISTING
CROSS STREETS, TO THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE
CITY FOR A LOCAL STREET; AND

(3) A MINIMUM OF 24 FEET MANEUVERING AREA IS PROVIDED
THAT IS A COMBINATION OF THE ALLEY PAVING AND ONSITE
PAVING, OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED THROUGH A
TECHNICAL APPEAL.




6. DESIGN REVIEW.

a. HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP). DESIGN REVIEW FOR HP-ZONED OR
HP-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SHALL BE AS REQUIRED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8, WITH NO MODIFICATIONS BY THIS
OVERLAY DISTRICT.

b. ALL LOTS NOT ZONED HP OR DESIGNATED HP, REGARDLESS OF
LOT WIDTH, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
507 TAB A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW.

***

Section 701. Bulk Regulations
Amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to read as follows:

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.

a. STANDARD OPTION. The following provisions apply to development in
Sections 604 through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision option of
Sections 609 through 618 IN THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, AND R-4A
DISTRICTS, AND IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-
3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT OPTION:

(1) Open projections.

(a) In any district, an awning, open porch, open carport, or open
balcony may project into any required front yard not more
than five feet.
FRONT YARD. AN ATTACHED CARPORT, AWNING,
PORCH/FRONT ENTRY, PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR
BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP TO FIVE FEET INTO THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD.




(b) An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony may
project into any side yard other than the side yard on the
street side of a corner lot, if it does not come nearest to the
side lot line than three feet.
SIDE YARDS. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO ANY INTERIOR (NOT STREET) SIDE
YARD, PROVIDED THAT IT IS NO CLOSER THAN THREE
FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

(i) For any lot wherein a ten-foot or greater side yard is
required, no such projection shall be within an area
ten feet wide and ten feet high, measured from
finished grade, lying within that side yard.

(ii) No more than one such clear area, as stipulated in i.
above, need be maintained on a lot.

(c) An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony may
project into a rear yard, provided it does not come nearer to a
common rear lot line than three feet. Where a rear alley
exists this projection may extend to the rear lot line or to
within eight or ten feet of what would be the centerline of a
full sixteen- or twenty-foot-wide alley where only a one-half or
partial alley exists.
REAR YARD. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO THE REAR YARD, PROVIDED THAT IT IS
NO CLOSER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE.

(i) WHERE A FULLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS,
THIS PROJECTION MAY EXTEND TO THE
PROPERTY LINE; OR WHERE ONLY A
PARTIALLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS, TO
WITHIN EIGHT OR TEN FEET OF WHAT WOULD
BE THE CENTERLINE OF A FULL 16- OR 20-
FOOT-WIDE ALLEY.

(d) Open fire balconies, and OPEN fire escape stairs
PROVIDED FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY may project not
more than five feet over INTO any required yard provided
they come no closer than two feet from a property line.




(e) Awnings, cornices, CANTILEVERED roof overhangs, and
eaves may project more than three feet over INTO any
required yard providing they come no closer than two feet
from a property line.

(f) Sills, leaders, belt courses, and similar ornamental features
may project not more than six inches over INTO any required
yard.

(g) An entrance awning may project into any required yard in an
R-5 or less restricted district.

(2) Closed Projections.

(a) A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule, ten feet or less in
width, may project not more than three feet into any
REQUIRED front or rear yard.

(b) A chimney may project not more than three feet into any
required yard, if it THE CHIMNEY is not more than six feet
long measured in a direction parallel to the nearest property
line AND so long as it is not closer than two feet from a
property line.

(c) The main building in a residence district may project five feet
into the required front yard for no more than one-half of the
maximum width of the structure.

(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU) may
project into the required rear or side yard, subject to the
following:

(i) The projection is no closer to a side property line than
five feet;

(ii) The projection is no closer to a rear property line than
three feet; and

(iii) The projection does not exceed 15 feet in height,
unless greater height is permitted by obtaining a use
permit per Section 307.




b. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENTS. The following provisionS applies APPLY to
development in the average lot and RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2,
R-3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN DEVELOPED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE Planned Residential Development options of
Sections 609 through 618, AND SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED AS
PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENTS PER SECTION 635:

(1) There shall be no projections into the required front or rear yard or
required perimeter setbacks except:

(a) A roof overhang may project not more than three feet into
either of these yard AREAS; and

(b) An attached awning, open porch, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY or other similar shade
structure may project not more than ten feet into the required
rear yard PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACK provided that
the structure shall neither cover more than two hundred 200
square feet nor come closer than three feet to a side or rear
property line.

(c) A CLOSED PROJECTION (WHICH MAY INCLUDE AN
ATTACHED ADU) MAY PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED
PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(I) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

(II) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

(III) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT IS
PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT PER
SECTION 307.

(2) A roof overhang may project no more than three feet into a required
street side yard setback.

c. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS. The following provisions
apply to single-family attached residential development: SFI
SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 608.I:




(1) Open Projections.

(a) An awning, open porch, or open balcony may project into any
required setback not more than five feet.
AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP TO
FIVE FEET INTO ANY REQUIRED YARD THAT IS NOT A
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

(b) Where an FULLY-DEDICATED alley exists, an ATTACHED
awning, open porch, PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, or open
balcony may extend to the property line.

(2) Closed Projections. A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule, ten
feet in width or less, may project not more than three feet into any
required building setback YARD THAT IS NOT A REQUIRED
LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

***

Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) to read as follows:

***

B. Site and Parking Space Design Standards.

***

2. Space and aisle dimensions. Dimensions for maneuvering aisles and for different
types of parking spaces shall be as follows:

***

b. Surface parking:

***




(5) The combined depth of the parking space and the aisle width shall
equal sixty-two (62) feet for a double loaded aisle and forty-three
(43) feet for a single loaded aisle.
FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HAVING NO MORE THAN
FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS, THE MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE
WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED TO 10 FEET FOR TWO-WAY
TRAFFIC WHERE IT DOES NOT ALSO FUNCTION AS
REQUIRED MANEUVERING FOR AN ADJACENT PARKING
SPACE, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

***

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be provided
according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial uses (see Section
702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level of parking required to
serve that use and receive site plan approval.



Type of Land Use Parking Requirements

*** ***

1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
A minimum of 50% Of the required parking
Dwelling Unit, Multi-family spaces, A MINIMUM OF 0.25 SPACES PER
DWELLING UNIT must be provided as
unreserved spaces WHEN THE LOT HAS
FIVE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

Per Section 608.F.6, if developing under the
single-family infill development option per
Sections 614 through 618.
2 spaces per PRIMARY DWELLING unit if
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Attached not developing under the SFI option. The
required spaces for each dwelling unit must
be provided on the same lot. An additional
0.25 unreserved spaceS per dwelling unit
must be provided elsewhere within the
development for visitor parking.

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Detached 2 spaces per 1 PRIMARY dwelling unit

*** ***




***

F. Special Parking Standards.

1. Residential DISTRICTS lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family residential uses may SHALL not
be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single-family residential uses may be
located in the required front yard. However, all parking and maneuvering
areas within the required front yard shall not exceed 50 percent of the area
of the required front yard, except that a driveway shall not be required to be
less than 18 feet in width unless otherwise stipulated by Historic
Preservation.
NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD
SHALL BE USED FOR DRIVEWAYS, MANEUVERING AREAS, AND NON-
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. HP-ZONED LOTS MAY BE
STIPULATED TO MAXIMUM PAVING THAT IS LESS THAN 50 PERCENT
AS A PART OF THE HP APPROVAL PROCESS SET FORTH IN
CHAPTER 8.

c. Buses shall not be parked in the front yard of any residential district. A bus
is any commercially licensed motor vehicle designed for carrying more than
fifteen (15) 15 passengers and used for the transportation of persons as
well as any motor vehicle, other than a taxicab, designed for the
transportation of persons for compensation.

d. Mobile homes shall not be parked in any residential district except as
provided in Section 647.A.2.1 608.J.

***

Section 703. Landscaping, Fences, and Walls
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences, and Walls) to read as follows:

***

B. Landscaping and Open Areas SPACE in Multiple-Family Development.




1. Purpose. Multiple-family dwellings UNITS can play a desired role by providing
desired forms of housing in appropriately zoned locations. However, because the
density of dwellings is greater than alternate forms of housing, there is a relatively
greater need to ensure an appropriate residential setting, including both landscape
amenities and adequate outdoor open areas. Although it is recognized that many
multiple-family projects will wish to provide these in greater amounts, this section
establishes minimum standards for these features. These standards also recognize
both limitations in water availability as well as legitimate needs to use landscaping
for shade, cooling, and visual relief. To these purposes, these standards distinguish
between landscaped areas oriented to public street and the exterior of projects
from that more internally oriented and for the use of residents. They provide for
landscaping at the perimeter and in front yards to include waterless features and
drought resistant plant materials. Higher water use landscaping is to be restricted to
interior areas devoted to resident use.

2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time of initial
development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot subject to
residential district standards with five or more dwelling units. PROPERTIES WITH
FOUR OR FEWER DWELLING UNITS SHOULD REFER TO SECTION 507 TAB
A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW.

***

Section 710. Hillside Development
Amend Chapter 7, Section 710 (Hillside Development) to read as follows:

***

B. Applicability.

***

2. Development of land in any zoning district within a hillside development area shall
also be regulated by the provisions of THIS section, 32-32 of the Phoenix City
Code, whether subdivided or not, and shall be subject to the following special
conditions:

a. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL BE APPLIED IN PLACE
OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE BASE ZONING
DISTRICT OF A PROPERTY AS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION, AND
SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED BY A ZONING OVERLAY.

b. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO REGULATED BY THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 32-32 OF THE PHOENIX CITY CODE, WHETHER
SUBDIVIDED OR NOT.




***

C. Standards.

***

2. Hillside development area standards. Special yard, height, area, and coverage
requirements for developments in the hillside areas in any zoning district shall be
as follows:

Table 1


HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


18,000 square As required by as required by As required by
feet* zoning district zoning district zoning district

*Lot areas of
more than
eighteen
thousand
MINIMUM LOT (18,000) square
AREA feet may be
required in order
to provide a
suitable building
site meeting the
grading
standards of
Section 32-32 of




HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


the Phoenix City
Code.

In no case shall
residential lots
contain an area
less than the
minimum area
required by the
zoning district in
which such lots
are located.


MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS


120* As required by As required by As required by
zoning district zoning district zoning district
120'*
• WIDTH
*Unless in
• DEPTH conformance
with Section 32-
32(M) of the City
Code


REQUIRED SETBACKS




HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


As required by As required by Minimum 30'* As required by
• FRONT YARD zoning district zoning district zoning district or
minimum 30'*


As required by As required by Minimum 30'* Minimum 30'*
• REAR YARD
zoning district zoning district


As required by As required by Minimum Minimum 15'*,
zoning district or zoning district or 15'**Building whichever is
ten (10) feet, ten (10) feet, heights greater greater*Building
whichever is whichever is than fifteen (15) heights greater
greater greater feet: required than fifteen (15)
yard plus one feet: required
(1) additional yard plus one (1)
• SIDE YARDS
foot for each additional foot
foot of building for each foot of
height building height
exceeding 15' exceeding 15'
measured from measured from
exterior exterior
boundaries boundaries


MAXIMUM The main The main The main The main
COVERAGE building and all building and all building and all building and all
UNDER ROOF accessory accessory accessory accessory
buildings shall buildings shall buildings shall buildings shall




HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


not occupy more not occupy more not occupy not occupy more
than twenty-five than twenty-five more than than twenty-five
percent (25%) of percent (25%) of twenty-five percent (25%) of
the hillside the hillside percent (25%) the hillside
portion of the lot portion of the lot of the hillside portion of the lot
or parcel or parcel portion of the lot or parcel or as
or parcel required by
zoning district,
whichever is less


No building shall No building shall No building shall No building shall
exceed a height exceed a height exceed a height exceed a height
of two (2) of two (2) of two (2) of two (2)
stories, not to stories, not to stories, not to stories, not to
MAXIMUM exceed thirty exceed thirty exceed thirty exceed thirty
BUILDING (30) feet above (30) feet above (30) feet above (30) feet above
HEIGHT the natural the natural the natural the natural grade
grade of the lot grade of the lot grade of the lot of the lot or
or parcel at any or parcel at any or parcel at any parcel at any
section through section through section through section through
the structure the structure the structure the structure




TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD: 18,000
SQUARE FEET, OR
AS REQUIRED BY
THE ZONING
NET LOT AREA DISTRICT, SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(1) WHICHEVER IS
(MINIMUM) ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
GREATER
PRD: SAME AS
BASE ZONING
DISTRICT

STANDARD: 120
FEET
LOT WIDTH (1) SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(2) PRD: SAME AS
(MINIMUM) ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
BASE ZONING
DISTRICT

STANDARD: 120
FEET
LOT DEPTH (1) SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(3) PRD: SAME AS
(MINIMUM) ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
BASE ZONING
DISTRICT

DEVELOPMENT
(4) DENSITY AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
(5) LOTS AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1
(MAXIMUM)




TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

30 FEET, OR AS
REQUIRED BY
FRONT YARD
SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE BASE ZONING
(6) SETBACK
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT DISTRICT,
(MINIMUM)
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.

30 FEET, OR AS
REQUIRED BY
REAR YARD
SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE BASE ZONING
(7) SETBACK
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT DISTRICT,
(MINIMUM)
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.

STANDARD: 10 STANDARD: 10
FEET OR AS FEET OR AS
REQUIRED BY REQUIRED BY 15 FEET, OR AS
BASE ZONING BASE ZONING REQUIRED BY
SIDE YARD DISTRICT, DISTRICT, BASE ZONING
(8) SETBACK WHICHEVER IS WHICHEVER IS DISTRICT,
(MINIMUM) GREATER. GREATER. WHICHEVER IS
PRD: SAME AS PRD: SAME AS GREATER.
BASE ZONING BASE ZONING
DISTRICT DISTRICT

PER SECTION PER SECTION
(9) PROJECTIONS NOT PERMITTED
701.A.3 701.A.3

PERIMETER
(10) SETBACKS SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)




TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

15 FEET WHEN WITHIN 10 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED
DISTRICT BOUNDARY, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
BUILDING ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING
(11) HEIGHT SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 2
(MAXIMUM) STORIES AND 30 FEET, AS MEASURED FROM THE NATURAL
GRADE OF THE PROPERTY AT ANY SECTION THROUGH THE
STRUCTURE.

FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS
EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT: 25 PERCENT,
LOT OR AS REQUIRED BY THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT,
(12) COVERAGE WHICHEVER IS LESS.
(MAXIMUM)
FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS
LESS THAN 10 PERCENT: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

COMMON
(13) OPEN SPACE SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

STREET
FRONTAGE
(14) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
REQUIREMENT
(2)



HILLSIDE:
SECTION 32-32,
HILLSIDE: CITY CODE. HILLSIDE:
SECTION 32-32, SECTION 32-32,
OTHER CITY CODE. DESIGN REVIEW: CITY CODE.
(15) APPLICABLE SECTION 507 TAB
REGULATIONS: DESIGN REVIEW: A. DESIGN REVIEW:
SECTION 507 TAB SECTION 507 TAB
A. MULTI-FAMILY: A.
SECTION 703.B




(1) MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED WHEN
APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION
32-32.C.3.M, REGARDING PANHANDLE, DOUBLE FRONTAGE, AND OTHER
UNORTHODOX LOTS.

(2) STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED
WHEN APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE
SECTION 32-32.C.3.N, REGARDING HILLSIDE STREET AND PAVING STANDARDS.

***
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix (Downtown Code)
Amend Section 1203. Land Use Matrix (Downtown Code) to read as follows:

***

Section 1203. Land Use Matrix

***

C. Land Use Matrix.




LAND USE
CHARACTER AREAS
CATEGORIES




BioMed Van Buren
ACTIVE USE Business Core Central Park Warehouse
East Evergreen McDowell Corridor Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West

RESIDENTIAL USES
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling Unit, Single- np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Family, Detached
(Including Duplex and
Triplex Uses)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
***




***

D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with conditions
(pc) OR USE PERMIT (up) as indicated with a number that corresponds with the Land Use
Matrix in Section 1203.C:

***
27. Single-Family Infill (SFI) subdivision, per Sections 608.F.6 and 614, Table 614.B
SECTION 608.I, except as modified below:

***

e. Frontage requirements: as per the applicable character area; or if lots front
on a something other than a frontage zone, per the regulations of Sections
608.F.6 and 614, Table B, Column D SECTION 608.I.

***

g. Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home occupations
per Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter street (not an alley)
may have additional uses as permitted per the applicable character area.
Single-family detached units are permitted for no more than 20 percent of
the units in an SFI development to allow for variety and efficiency of design.

***

Section 1205. Frontage Elements (Downtown Code)
Amend Section 1205. Frontage Elements (Downtown Code) to read as follows:

***

A. Active Front Yard (AFY). An active front yard is a frontage element intended for use on
blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex style
residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses which are
nonresidential, or on residential lots with more than two FOUR PRIMARY dwelling units
(not including ADUs). (R*)

1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and
improvements in the frontage zone shall be constructed as approved by Historic
Preservation.




2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be
installed in conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit Design
Standards) II.C.9 (RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW). If any of the
requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 conflict with provisions of the
Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 requirements shall prevail.

***

Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards (WU Code)
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1303 (Transect Lot Standards) to read as follows:

***

Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter, including
frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting public streets,
private accessways, and private driveways, with the following caveats:

a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family Infill development
option SUBDIVISION standards per Section 608.F.6 and Table 614.B,
column D (except for the density, which is not restricted) 608.I if it meets all
three of the following conditions:

(1) The development SUBDIVISION consists solely of single-family
dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;

(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the single-
family infill development option or the infill development district as
depicted on the map provided in Section 608.F.6; and
THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN
OR IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS
OBTAINED USE PERMIT APPROVAL; AND

(3) The development SUBDIVISION is located in any transect other
than T3.

b. All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance (Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the
Subdivision Committee to further the goals of the Walkable Urban Code.



2. All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the same
setback and stepback standards as the single-family infill development option
(Table 614.B, column D); with additional requirements as follows: BE SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING STEPBACK AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET
OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE
INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF
BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT. THIS
stepback provision shall not exceedREQUIRE GREATER THAN A
maximum 75-foot setback from rear and side property lines for building
height before THE maximum height IS allowed.

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1306 (Land Use Matrix) to read as follows:

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix

***




B. Use Regulations.

***

Table 1306.1 Land Use Matrix


CATEGORY: T3 T4 T5:2 T5:3 T5:5 T5:6 T5:7 T6:7 T6:22
RESIDENTIAL USES T6:15 T6:
HWR
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family P P NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Detached (Including Duplex and
Triplex Uses)

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family P P P P P P P P P
Attached

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL NP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
SUBDIVISION

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***


***

C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.

***

4. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1303.A.1.a.

***

Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking and loading standards) to read as follows:

***

Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.

***

B. Required Vehicular Parking.

***



Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking


T5 T5

USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6 MEASURE
Stories Stories

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Per Section 608.F.6 608.I, if developing under the
Residential, Single-
Per unit provisions of Section 1303.A.1.a; otherwise per
Family Attached
Section 702.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***


***

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT E

From: Dan Clark
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: Flight Path Areas
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 6:55:41 AM




Hello,

I wanted to suggest that the flight path areas should be included in your map. Perhaps you
create a rule that anything built in that area must have certain sound protection. Given the ‌
pushback and lobbying you're getting from Willo, if they are successful you will lose a lot of
areas to build. I am in support of middle housing and this flight path area seems like a perfect
place with some good city planning given how sparse the area is and the desperate need for
housing even if not ideal.

Thanks




ATTACHMENT F

From: L Shannon Bryant
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: Proposed Middle Housing
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 2:00:29 PM









From: Jen LaPointe
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: Historic neighborhood impact?
Date: Sunday, August 10, 2025 9:31:13 PM







Hello! I am writing to voice my concerns over the proposed zoning changes in downtown
Phoenix neighborhoods, specifically federally registered historic places. To allow duplexes,
triplexes or fourplexes on single family lots in registered historic neighborhoods (ie, Ashland
Place) would negate the entire character and reason for the historic neighborhoods in the first
place. There needs to be very specific planning involved to determine lots that make sense for
this or havoc will ensue creating a mish-mash blend of issues between single family lots and
multi-family lots. This needs to be thoughtful planning not a blanket rezoning. I am not
against density but many lots should not be more than a main house and one ADU only.
Jamming a fourplex next to a single family home will create a myriad of issues alone.
Developers will buy up all the lots and true neighborhoods will be no longer.

Please tell me the historic neighborhoods would be exempt from this? Otherwise, there will
be no more history-

Sincerely,
-Jennifer LaPointe, P.E., LEED AP
Take Flight, LLC




From: bplasencia
To: PDD Middle Housing; bplasencia Plasencia
Subject: Willo property owner statement
Date: Monday, August 11, 2025 5:51:24 PM







Hello
My name is Beth Plasencia. I have lived in the Willo neighborhood for nine years.
After raising our children in Chandler, we wanted to experience the benefits of living
and working in midtown Phoenix. The uniqueness of Willo drew us in and we purchased
our home.

Living in mid town does not come without its issues. HOWEVER, we feel our
neighborhood and its sense of community outweighs those issues.

We bought a single family home in the Willo neighborhood which is zoned as a single
family residential neighborhood. The State of Arizona and the City of Phoenix threaten
our home which is also a major investment. The state laws have been passed with little
or no input from citizens for superseding existing zoning and historic designations in
cities. This impact on the historic districts is tremendous and potentially fatal to the
neighborhood.

We bought a single family home. Never in all the states I lived in has zoning been
changed lacking the input of the people that own the property. After this bill was passed
by the legislature, with little or no thought on how the impacted neighborhoods would
feel, the City adjusted the Central Business District boundaries that impact most of the
historic communities in the city including the Willo.

A four-plex in Willo will not be affordable. Currently there are town homes for sale on
first avenue that are over $1,000,000. What it will do is lower the property values in the
Willo and other historic neighborhoods. It will cause lower values for single family
homes, street parking issues, traffic problems, and change the vibe of the neighborhood.
How many places in Phoenix do neighbors regularly assemble for happy hours,
community events and that is highly inclusive of all neighbors.

Although not able to attend tonight I will wear white clothing in spirit to support the
neighborhoods. The changes that allow four-plexes is unethical if not illegal. I feel I
was not given a voice rather eminent domain was implemented without fair

representation of the impacts on Willo and other historic communities. Please consider
exceptions for historic areas, ones that have come back from decline. Once these historic
homes are gone they never will be rebuilt.

Beth Plasencia
326 W Windsor Ave


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]




From: bplasencia
To: PDD Middle Housing; Doug Plasencia
Subject: Willo property impact statement
Date: Monday, August 11, 2025 5:53:10 PM







The legislature playing partisan politics has perpetrated under false claims of affordable
housing the ability to change residential densities in single family neighborhoods within one
mile of a business district. This shift hits historic districts particularly hard because of the
proximity of historic neighborhoods to the city centers. The cities have not as of yet effectively
pushed back against this law in part due to competing agendas that pit neighborhoods against
urban redevelopment funds.

In spite of partisan politics and city led special interest agendas what these officials are
ignoring is that they are setting the stage for a taking of property rights. Inverse condemnation
is a well understood tenet where the action of another owner or in this case government can
not take action that harms another property. Second is the concept of due process where
these policies and competing interests can debate community matters. A legislative hearing
hardly qualifies as due process to notify those impacted and to provide a balanced voice. City
officials that ignore this due process issue are likewise culpable.

As a nine year resident of a historic district impacted by this change, I implore the City to take
every action to reverse this law and when the first permit comes to the City that no approvals
be given that violates the bedrock constitutional principles of no taking including inverse
condemnations, or that violates the premise of due process as described in the constitution.

Doug Plasencia
326 W Windsor Ave


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]




From: Debby
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: text amendment Z-TA-1-25-Y and rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:11:24 PM








I am strongly opposed to this!! This area contains the only architecture worth saving
in the entire city - It has charm, community, and tradition -there is still some greenery
to keep Phoenix cooler! Why quadruple the population in this tiny area when there is
the entire desert around us? Where will the water come from? Why not keep the
developers happy in North Phoenix where they can build the cheap tickey-tackey
houses they’ve started?

Debby Gelbspan
81 E Ashland Ave




Written Testimony for Public Record

Case: Z-TA-1-25-Y (Middle Housing Text Amendment) and Z-3-25-4-7-8 (Companion
Rezoning)


Date: August 14, 2025
To: City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department; Planning Commission; City Council
From: Gregg and Lisa Carrington
Address: 26 W Vernon Ave (Willo Historic District)
Email: greggcarrington@gmail.com
Residents, Willo Historic District (National Register & HP overlay)



Position

We oppose Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion Z-3-25-4-7-8 as currently drafted. We respectfully
request revisions that (1) fully leverage existing historic preservation review and demolition
controls in HP districts, (2) align implementation with adopted neighborhood conservation plans,
and (3) prevent unintended incentives to demolish contributing historic structures.

While we strongly support protecting all of Phoenix’s historic neighborhoods, we understand
from the recent public meeting that the City may not be granting exemptions to the Middle
Housing Law. If so, it is even more critical that this ordinance incorporate the following six
amendments to ensure state compliance and the preservation of the character and integrity of
these districts.

We support the efforts of Save Historic AZ and the Willo Neighborhood Association,
specifically:

1. Exemption for historic districts from the Middle Housing Law;
2. Using the “Business Core” section of the Downtown Code (DTC) as the Middle Housing
zone — which would set the northern boundary at Palm Lane instead of Thomas Road;
3. Including delayed implementation in the text amendment. While the law says it must be
adopted by Jan. 1, 2026, it does not require immediate activation.


Context

The State’s 2024 law (A.R.S. § 9-462.13 via HB 2721) requires cities to allow up to four
dwelling units per lot within one mile of Downtown and limits required off-street parking to no
more than one space per unit. State law does not exempt historic districts, but it also does not
change Phoenix’s existing HP design review or demolition-approval procedures.




Phoenix is home to many unique and historically significant neighborhoods — from Encanto-
Palmcroft to Garfield to Coronado to Willo — each with its own architectural character. In
Willo, for example, we already have historic duplexes, triplexes, and quads that fit seamlessly
into our historic fabric because they were built to match the neighborhood’s scale, setbacks, and
styles. The amendments we propose would allow that kind of compatible middle housing
in all historic districts while discouraging demolition-first redevelopment and out-of-scale
construction.

We also live in the most densely populated area of Phoenix, and the Willo Neighborhood has
supported every multi-family housing project adjacent to our neighborhood for the past 25
years — including Tapestry, Muse, Arthaus, Willo Lofts, and more. We recognize the housing
shortage, but opening historic districts to demolition and speculative redevelopment will not
solve the crisis — it will only destroy irreplaceable heritage.



Lessons from the 1970s

Phoenix’s 1960s–70s “urban renewal” policies demolished large portions of downtown’s historic
fabric. Blocks of irreplaceable architecture, including historic fire stations and early commercial
buildings, were replaced with lifeless concrete structures. While Heritage Square was saved at
the last moment, the broader damage is still regretted today. We should not repeat those mistakes
in our historic neighborhoods.



Why preservation and “middle housing” can co-exist

Research from the National Trust for Historic Preservation shows that older, smaller buildings
help neighborhoods thrive economically, socially, and environmentally. Adaptive reuse avoids
the problems created by demolition and maintains the unique character that draws people to our
city.

Middle housing can and should be integrated into historic districts — but only if design, scale,
and reuse are prioritized over demolition.



Specific Concerns

1. Demolition Risk in HP Districts – Without strong reinforcement of HP rules in this
ordinance, there is an incentive to demolish contributing homes and replace them with
box-style fourplexes built to minimum parking standards.
2. Parking Impacts – The state parking cap (1 space per unit) will cause spillover onto
already-congested streets unless paired with curb-management tools.




3. Conflict with Conservation Plans – Adopted neighborhood conservation plans
emphasize rehabilitation and compatibility; this amendment could shift economics
toward teardown if left unchecked.



What Still Applies in Historic Neighborhoods

• HP Design Review – COA or CNE required for exterior changes and infill.
• HP Demolition Approval – Separate HPO review and hardship process still required for
demo of contributing structures.
• Local Authority Remains – Council can reinforce HP rules in the MHOD text and pair
the overlay with parking management, adaptive-reuse incentives, and extended
demolition holds.



Six Required Amendments

1. HP Applicability Clause: All middle housing in HP districts must follow HP design
review and demolition approval procedures — including Certificates of
Appropriateness/No Effect, demolition approval, and the Certification of Economic
Hardship process.
2. Form Compatibility: Require middle housing in HP districts to match the same
frontage, setbacks, height planes, lot coverage, and porch/entry patterns already required
for single-family homes in the district’s HP guidelines. This allows neighborhoods like
Willo to continue integrating duplexes, triplexes, and quads that match the historic fabric,
while preventing out-of-scale or incompatible new builds.
3. Adaptive-Reuse Incentive: Create a fee reduction and expedited review for projects that
add units by converting the interior of existing contributing homes instead of demolishing
them.
4. Curb Management Commitment: Pair the overlay with Residential Permit Zones or
similar curb-management tools so parking caps don’t overwhelm historic streets.
5. Annual Report: Require staff to track and report demolitions, adaptive reuse vs.
teardowns, and parking impacts in HP districts every year.
6. Extended Demolition Hold: Increase the demolition hold period for contributing historic
properties in HP districts from the current 1 year to 2 years, allowing more time to
explore preservation and adaptive-reuse options before historic structures are lost.



Legal Defensibility

These six amendments are fully compatible with A.R.S. § 9-462.13. The statute establishes
minimum entitlements for middle housing but explicitly leaves in place local Historic
Preservation design review, demolition controls, and administrative procedures. None of these



amendments reduce the number of units allowed, impose a more restrictive process than that
applied to single-family homes in the same HP district, or increase parking requirements beyond
the state cap. Instead, they operate within the City’s retained authority to manage design,
demolition timing, and neighborhood compatibility — tools the state deliberately left in local
hands.



Conclusion

Since no exemptions will be provided for historic districts, the only path to protecting the
character of Phoenix’s historic neighborhoods while meeting state housing mandates is to embed
these six amendments into Z-TA-1-25-Y / Z-3-25-4-7-8.

Phoenix can comply with state law and ensure that middle housing in historic districts is
compatible, context-sensitive, and preservation-minded. Please adopt these changes before final
approval.

Respectfully,
Gregg and Lisa Carrington
Residents, Willo Historic District




RCVD 9/29/2025
Save Historic AZ
PO Box 33922
Phoenix, AZ 85067
savehistoricaz@gmail.com


Dear Honorable Councilmember,

We are writing to urge you to recognize that the Middle Housing Law does not apply to Phoenix’s historic neighborhoods,
nor should it.

Historic neighborhoods are already entitled to more diverse housing options. These areas, including Willo, F.Q. Story, and
others, already support density with historic duplexes and casitas (ADUs). The Middle Housing law aims to introduce multi-
family options in areas restricted to single-family use. That is not the case in our historic districts, which are already zoned for
higher density.

The Phoenix Zoning Code reinforces this:
R1-6 lots subdivided prior to 1998 are already entitled to duplexes (Table 6.13B).
R1-10 lots subdivided prior to 1999 have similar entitlements (Table 6.11B).
These properties are explicitly described as having “multi-family development” potential, and are therefore not classified
as “single-family residential zoning”—which is the key condition required for the Middle Housing Law to apply.

If the Legislature had intended this law to override all zoning classifications, it could have done so. Instead, it limited the
law’s scope. Applying it where it does not belong undermines the intent of both the statute and our city’s historic preservation
goals.

Applying this law to historic neighborhoods poses an existential threat to those districts. Once a district falls below 51%
contributing structures, it risks losing its historic designation entirely. The City has invested significant federal, state, and local
funding into preserving these neighborhoods and in encouraging residents to restore and live in them.

Allowing the Middle Housing Law to take root in historic areas would:
Incentivize demolition of historic homes,
Accelerate the erosion of historic character, and
Transfer wealth from residents to institutional investors operating four-plexes as short-term rentals.

This is not hypothetical—it is already happening in cities that failed to protect their historic cores. We ask the City to formally
adopt this legal interpretation: The Middle Housing Law does not apply to our historic districts. We urge you to stand with us
in defending Phoenix’s legacy neighborhoods from inappropriate zoning changes that will permanently alter their character.

For more information on the tremendous cultural and economic value these districts provide, we invite you to review this
report: https://www.placeeconomics.com/resources/preservation-phoenix-style/

Thank you for your service to our city and for helping us preserve its unique history.


Sincerely,


Bradley Brauer, President, Opal Wagner, Co-Chair, Elle January, President,
Willo Neighborhood Association Save Historic AZ Los Olivos Historic Neighborhood
Co-Chair, Save Historic AZ
Robert Warnicke Sasha Robinson, President
Robert Warnicke Law PLC Story Preservation Association
https://savehistoricaz.com

From: Paul Zagnoni
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:56 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: A.R.S. Section 38-431.02




Dear Honorable Councilmembers, I am writing you as an owner of a historic home in LA Hacienda for
over 25+ years to urge you to recognize that the Middle Housing Law does not apply to Phoenix's historic
neighborhoods, nor should it.

Historic neighborhoods are already entitled to more diverse housing options. These areas, including
Willo, F.Q. Story, andothers, already support density with historic duplexes and casitas (ADUs). The
Middle Housing law aims to introduce multi-family options in areas restricted to single- family use. That is
not the case in our historic districts, which are already zoned forhigher density.

The Phoenix Zoning Code reinforces this:

·R1-6 lots subdivided prior to 1998 are already entitled to duplexes (Table 6.13B).

· R1-10 lots subdivided prior to 1999 have similar entitlements (Table 6.11B).

·These properties are explicitly described as having "multi-family development" potential, and are
therefore not classifiedas "single-family residential zoning"-which is the key condition required for the
Middle Housing Law to apply.

If the Legislature had intended this law to override all zoning classifications, it could have done so.
Instead, it limited thelaw's scope. Applying it where it does not belong undermines the intent of both the
statute and our city's historic preservationgoals.

Applying this law to historic neighborhoods poses an existential threat to those districts. Once a district
falls below 51%contributing structures, it risks losing its historic designation entirely. The City has
invested significant federal, state, and localfunding into preserving these neighborhoods and in
encouraging residents to restore and live in them.

Allowing the Middle Housing Law to take root in historic areas would:

·Incentivize demolition of historic homes,

·Accelerate the erosion of historic character, and




1 994
·Transfer wealth from residents to institutional investors operating four-plexes as short-term rentals.

This is not hypothetical-it is already happening in cities that failed to protect their historic cores. I ask the
City to formally adopt this legal interpretation: The Middle Housing Law does not apply to our historic
districts. We urge you to stand with us in defending Phoenix's legacy neighborhoods from inappropriate
zoning changes that will permanently alter their character

Thank you for your service to our city and for helping us preserve its unique hheritage.

Paul Zagnoni

602-571-1681 cell




2 995
From: Laura Zagnoni
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 12:06 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Middle Housing (Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8)


For meeting occuring on October 6, 2025, 6:00 pm, Agenda item #2:

Save Historic AZ

Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
I am are writing to urge you to recognize that the Middle Housing Law does not apply to Phoenix's historic
neighborhoods, nor should it.
My family has resided in a historic district for over 25 years (Willo, and now La Hacienda) and have
chosen to stay because of the value and community within these districts. We urge you to consider the
points made below as well as the residents and communities that would be adversely affected.

Historic neighborhoods are already entitled to more diverse housing options. These areas, including
Willo, F.Q. Story, andothers, already support density with historic duplexes and casitas (ADUs). The
Middle Housing law aims to introduce multi-family options in areas restricted to single- family use. That is
not the case in our historic districts, which are already zoned forhigher density.
The Phoenix Zoning Code reinforces this:
·R1-6 lots subdivided prior to 1998 are already entitled to duplexes (Table 6.13B).
· R1-10 lots subdivided prior to 1999 have similar entitlements (Table 6.11B).
·These properties are explicitly described as having "multi-family development" potential, and are
therefore not classifiedas "single-family residential zoning"-which is the key condition required for the
Middle Housing Law to apply.
If the Legislature had intended this law to override all zoning classifications, it could have done so.
Instead, it limited the law's scope. Applying it where it does not belong undermines the intent of both the
statute and our city's historic preservationgoals.
Applying this law to historic neighborhoods poses an existential threat to those districts. Once a district
falls below 51%contributing structures, it risks losing its historic designation entirely. The City has
invested significant federal, state, and localfunding into preserving these neighborhoods and in
encouraging residents to restore and live in them.
Allowing the Middle Housing Law to take root in historic areas would:
·Incentivize demolition of historic homes,
·Accelerate the erosion of historic character, and
·Transfer wealth from residents to institutional investors operating four-plexes as short-term rentals.

This is not hypothetical-it is already happening in cities that failed to protect their historic cores. We ask
the City to formallyadopt this legal interpretation: The Middle Housing Law does not apply to our
historic districts.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important matter.
Laura Zagnoni




1 996
From: PAT KORDELSKI
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 7:49 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Bill to destroy historic neighborhoods by allowing four-plexus to be built on property
HB 4721




I am sending my vote to disagree with the proposed legislation to allow this outrageous travesty to
our historic neighborhoods. Legislating after the fact and calling it a measure to provide affordable
housing is a misnomer. This is being done under the guise of providing builders and construction
companies the ability to make money on the backs of hard working people who have chosen a
particular area for its charm and sense of community. This is another example of our legislators
doing exactly what they want to do , rather than addressing the housing problem with viable solutions.

Do not destroy our neighborhoods. We are unhappy with this piece of legislation. Shame on this
commission.

Pat Kordelski




1 997
October 3, 2025
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003



Dear Honorable Commission Members:

On behalf of the Preserve Phoenix board, we strongly urge the commission to recognize that
historic neighborhoods should be exempt from HB 2721. We are calling for the commission and
city council to act immediately to adopt protective zoning amendments that recognize the unique
density and character of historic districts and respect their contribution to Phoenix’s identity.

HB 2721 removes local control by requiring Phoenix and other large cities to allow duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes “by right” in single-family zones within one mile of the
Central Business District and in 20% of all new developments over 10 acres. If Phoenix does not
adopt compliant zoning by January 1, 2026, this development will be automatically permitted on
all single-family lots without local review — a permanent and irreversible change.

The “Missing Middle Law” aims to create multi-family options and create denser housing
opportunities in the city. Phoenix’s 36 historic districts — including Roosevelt, F.Q. Story,
Garfield, Coronado, Willo, and others — are among the densest residential neighborhoods in the
city, already zoned R-1-6, which has allowed multifamily options since 1998.

We believe that the city should work to retain robust demolition review and design guidelines for
contributing structures, ensuring Certificates of Appropriateness and Certificates of Eligibility
remain enforceable and advocate at the state level for legislative changes that explicitly exempt
historic districts from HB 2721’s mandates.

These neighborhoods have proven economic, environmental, and social value: higher property
values, more walkability, greater tree cover, and stronger small-business job growth. HB 2721
provides no exemption for historic districts, risking demolition of contributing and non-
contributing properties alike, and weakening the integrity of districts that depend on a majority
of contributing structures to maintain historic status.

Preserve Phoenix is committed to being a partner in smart, sustainable growth that balances the
need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect the cultural, economic, and




environmental value of our historic districts. Phoenix can grow without losing its soul — but
only if we act now.We respectfully urge you to help protect Phoenix history and defend these
historic districts that are at risk.

Sincerely,



Erin Lindsey
President, Preserve Phoenix


cc: Kate Gallego, Mayor
Members of Council
Joshua Bednarek, Planning & Development
Helana Ruter, Historic Preservation Office




From: Christine Hall
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 9:07 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Middle Housing Agenda item




I object to Agenda Item #2 on Middle Housing (Application # Z-TA-1-25-Y)


Sent from Christine Hall, 1540 W Vernon Ave, Phoenix 85007.




1 1000
From: Nicole Brickner
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 12:26 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition proposed text amendment item 2.




My name is nicole brickner at 602 380 4670. I oppose proposed text amendment, item 2. Thank you
-nicole brickner




1 1001
From: Christopher Bates
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 5:50 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Middle Housing Law




Planning Commission:

I live in Windsor Square and am opposed to the Middle Housing Law being applied in Central
Phoenix, as it may negatively impact historic neighborhoods and their status. The proliferation of
affordable four-plexes and other multi-family housing would surely be good for some, but could
endanger the status of historic districts in our city.


Christopher Bates
230 E. Oregon Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012




1 1002
From: walter switzer
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 7:16 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Historic District Change




Sent from my iPhone
Please vote against the proposal to change the Historic District rules to allow multiple units to be built
on properties in our historic districts. Thank you.
Walter E. Switzer, III, Trustee
369 E. Catalina Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85012




1 1003



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-3-25-4-7-8 -
Middle Housing Overlay District - Various Parcels Located Within One Mile of the
Downtown (Ordinance G-7447) - Districts 4, 7 & 8

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application
Z-3-25-4-7-8 and rezone the area generally within one mile of the Downtown Code
boundary from various underlying zoning districts to various underlying zoning districts
with the Middle Housing Overlay District as created by the companion case, Z-
TA-1-25-Y. This case must be heard following Z-TA-1-25-Y.

Summary
Current Zoning: Various Underlying Zoning Districts
Proposed Zoning: Various Underlying Zoning Districts with the Middle Housing
(MH) Overlay District.
Acreage: Approximately 4,467.45
Proposal: Map the boundaries for the initial application of the Middle Housing Overlay
District (Z-TA-1-25-Y).

A.R.S. Section 9-462.13 requires that the area located within one mile of Downtown be
provided the entitlement for middle housing no later than January 1, 2026. Rezoning
Case Z-3-25-4-7-8 has been created to map the boundaries of the MH Overlay District,
as described above, to this area with the exceptions as required by the new state law.
The applicable exception is for the territory in the vicinity of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport
(south of Downtown). A detailed map is provided as Exhibit A of Attachment A and
within Exhibit B of the Staff Report (Attachment B).

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in Exhibit B of the Staff Report.
VPC Information Only: This item was heard for information only by 14 of the 15 Village
Planning Committees throughout September 2025. One of the 15 Village Planning
Committees did not have a quorum. The summaries for these meetings are



available in Attachment C.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2025 and
recommended approval, as shown in Exhibit B of the Staff Report, by a vote of 5-3
(Attachment D).

Location
Various parcels located within one mile of the Downtown.
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8

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





ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART 11, CHAPTER 41, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, BY AMENDING
SECTION 601, THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCELS DESCRIBED HEREIN (CASE Z-3-25-4-7-8) FROM
VARIOUS UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS TO VARIOUS
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS WITH THE MIDDLE
HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1: The zoning of approximately 4,467.45 acres in an area

generally located within one mile of Downtown (boundary of Downtown Code Zoning), is

hereby changed to add the Middle Housing Overlay District.

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this district classification change

as shown in Exhibit “A.”

SECTION 3. The specific nature of the subject property and of the

rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-3-25-4-7-8, on file with 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 5th day of November,

2025.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Z-TA-1-25-Y
and Rezoning Case No. Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025

Application No. Z-TA-1-25-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
Middle Housing as required by Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.13, by creating
a Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District; and amend various other sections of the Zoning
Ordinance to clarify terms and to ensure proper application of related state
requirements related to Middle Housing, as follows:

Section 202 (Definitions), Section 507 Tab A (Guidelines for Design Review), Section
608 (Residence Districts), Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District),
Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District), Section 611 (R1-10 Single-
Family Residence District), Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District),
Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District), Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily
Residence District), Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District), Section 616 (R-3A
Multifamily Residence District), Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District),
Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District), Section 619 (Residential R-4A
District—Multifamily Residence—General), Section 622 (Commercial C-1 District—
Neighborhood Commercial), Section 623 (Commercial C-2 District—Intermediate
Commercial), Section 624 (Commercial C-3 District—General Commercial), Section
632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High Density District), Section 701 (Bulk
Regulations), Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), Section 703 (Landscaping,
Fences, and Walls), Section 710 (Hillside Development), Section 708 (Temporary
uses), Section 1203 (Land Use Matrix, Downtown Code), Section 1205 (Frontage
Elements, Downtown Code), Section 1303 (Transect Lot Standards, WU Code), Section
1306 (Land Use Matrix, WU Code), and Section 1307 (Parking and Loading Standards,
WU Code).

Application No. Z-3-25-4-7-8: Map the boundaries for the Middle Housing Overlay
District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within one mile of the Downtown Code
boundary.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-1-25-Y as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A; and Z-3-25-4-7-8 be approved as shown in Exhibit B.



Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


BACKGROUND
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2721, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session and signed into law by the Governor (2024) which created
Section 9-462.13, Arizona Revised Statutes to require municipalities to allow Middle
Housing in an area within one mile of Downtown, in addition to 20% of any new
subdivision citywide. “Middle Housing” is defined by the state statute as “buildings that
are compatible in scale, form and character with single-family houses and that contain
two or more attached, detached, stacked or clustered homes [and] includes duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes and townhouses.”

PURPOSE
The primary intent of the proposed text amendment is to establish the Middle Housing
(MH) Overlay District, Section 632, which will allow the development of middle housing
on lots zoned for single-family use, and apply it to the area located within one mile of
Downtown by January 1, 2026, as required by state law. The secondary purpose is to
make other revisions to multiple sections of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to ensure
proper compliance with the new state requirements.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) creation of the
Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District, Section 632; 2) revisions to various sections of
the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with the requirements of Arizona Revised
Statutes, Section 9-462.13; and 3) revisions to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance
to correctly clarify and cross-reference the zoning ordinance terms and provisions which
were updated for compliance with the requirements of the new state law.

1. Creation of the Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District
The Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District is created as Section 632, replacing the
obsolete High-Rise H-R1 District which has since been supplanted by the Downtown
Code (Chapter 12). The MH Overlay district has two main purposes: to allow up to
four primary dwelling units (PDU) on lots which are otherwise permitted a single-
family home, and to ensure that the applicable development standards are both
consistent with those used for single-family homes in the same district, as well as
compliant with the requirements and restrictions of A.R.S. Section 9-462.13.

Opt-In Provision
The MH Overlay District also includes the qualification requirements and procedure
for up to 20% of the lots in new residential subdivisions that are at least 10
contiguous acres in size. The Opt-In Provision does not apply to existing residential
subdivisions.

Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


2. Revisions needed for compliance with A.R.S. 9-462.13.
Revisions to the development standards/development options tables are required to
lawfully administer the provisions and prohibitions of A.R.S. 9-462.13. It is the
following prohibitions which primarily caused the need for the changes:

B. “The municipality may not do any of the following:

1. Discourage the development of middle housing through requirements or
actions that individually or cumulatively make impracticable the permitting,
siting, or construction of middle housing.
2. Restrict middle housing types to less than two floors.
3. Restrict middle housing types to a floor area ratio of less than fifty percent.
4. Set restrictions, permitting or review processes for middle housing that are
more restrictive than those for single-family dwellings within the same
zone.
5. Require owner occupancy of any structures on the lot.
6. Require any structures to comply with a commercial building code or to
contain a fire sprinkler.
7. Require more than one off-street parking space per unit.

Text Revisions
The following summarizes the text revisions necessary to comply with these
prohibitions:

• The “Conventional” development option has been removed, because the
development standards are not consistent with development in historic
districts, and current ordinance permissions would allow development of
middle housing to different and incompatible standards within older/historic
subdivisions.
• The “Average Lot” development option, which has been prohibited in most
districts since 1998 for single-family development, has been removed
because it could be used as a way to develop middle housing in areas not
required by the state law, or be viewed as not applying consistent
development standards to both single-family and middle housing, which is
required by the new state law.
• The “Single-Family Infill (SFI)” development option has been removed from
each section, and all development standards (and use permit requirements)
relocated to Section 608.I.
• The separate, but same-named “Planned Residential Development” options
having different standards for single-family and multi-family development

Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


have been combined into one development option, with consistent
development standards for both multi-family (including middle housing) and
single-family development.
• The “Standard” development option has been created, which is essentially a
renaming of the existing “Subdivision” development option. The development
standards of the Standard option are the same as the Subdivision option, with
minor clarifications to allow for consistent application of development
standards for both multi-family (including middle housing) and single-family
development in the same zone. Most homes in historic districts were
constructed using the Subdivision option standards, and the new Standard
option ensures that new development, including middle housing, will develop
with the same historic zoning regulations.
• Lot coverage has been revised by the MH Overlay to apply the same
standard to both single-family and multi-family development when located
within an MH district. When combined with the RE-43, RE-35, RE-24, and
R1-14 districts, the MH district allows an increase to 50% coverage when all
structures on the site are one-story, maximum 20 feet in height.
• Required on-site parking has been reduced to one space per primary dwelling
unit, as required by the new state law.
• Individual lot design review for single-family lots (Section 507 Tab A, II.C.8)
has been revised to be applicable to both single-family homes and middle
housing (up to four units on a lot) and moved to its own section, Section 507
Tab A, II.C.9.
• The residential land use matrix (Section 608.D) has been revised to move the
permissions for Single-Family Infill subdivisions to the table, and to remove
“duplex” and “triplex” as separate uses (they are both forms of multi-family
dwelling units).
• Section 1203, Downtown Code land use matrix, has also been updated to
remove “duplex” and “triplex” as separate uses (they are both forms of multi-
family dwelling units).
• Section 608.G has been revised to clearly explain how developments which
were approved using development options no longer permitted convert to the
current ordinance standards. Any existing approved documents using a
now-archaic development option are still valid.
• Section 702, Off-Street Parking and Loading, has been revised to clarify front
yard paving restrictions and apply consistently to both single-family and multi-
family development.




Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


Definitions
Definitions have been revised for several reasons: to provide clarity in application of
the new requirements; to be consistent with definitions used in the state law; and to
properly cross-reference other terms which have been revised.

Of special note, “Primary Dwelling Unit (PDU)” was added to clearly differentiate
from “Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)”. This is the manner in which the MH overlay
district allows additional PDUs per lot (up to 4), while not increasing the number of
permitted subdivided lots.

3. Revisions for clarification and cross-references.
Other revisions were made to correctly reference new and revised terms, as well as
relocated/renumbered sections of the Zoning Ordinance, with no substantive
revisions:

• Section 608.H, Density Bonus, has been updated to reference the revised
development options in each district.
• All Single-Family Infill (SFI) subdivision regulations have been consolidated in
Section 608.I.
• Off-Site Manufactured Home Development regulations have been moved to
Section 608.J.
• The C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts have been updated to correctly reference
standards for Single-Family Infill subdivisions and Off-Site Manufactured
Home Developments, in addition to clarifying language regarding existing
residential use permissions.
• Section 701.A.3, regarding yard projections, has been updated to reference
revised residential development options.
• Section 703, Landscaping, Fences, and Walls, has been updated to apply to
lots having up to four dwelling units, rather than just single-family and duplex.
• Section 710, Hillside Development, has been updated to cross-reference
revised residential development options.
• Section 1205, Frontage Elements (Downtown Code), has been updated to
cross-reference the revised Residential Lot Design Review standards
provided in Section 507 Tab A, II.C.9.
• Section 1303, Transect Lot standards (WU Code) has been updated to cross-
reference the relocated Single-Family Infill regulations moved to Section
608.I.
• Section 1306, Land Use Matrix (WU Code), has been updated to remove the
terms “duplex” and “triplex” as well as add the Single-Family Infill (SFI)
subdivision option as a permitted use.

Staff Report: Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8
August 29, 2025


• Section 1307, Parking and Loading Standards (WU Code), has been updated
to correctly cross-reference the relocated Single-Family Infill regulations
moved to Section 608.I.

REZONING CASE NO. Z-3-25-4-7-8
A.R.S Section 9-462.13 requires that the area located within one mile of Downtown be
provided the entitlement for middle housing no later than January 1, 2026. Rezoning Case
No. Z-3-25-4-7-8 has been created to map the boundaries of the MH Overlay district, as
described above, to this area with the exceptions as required by the new state law. The
applicable exception is for the territory in the vicinity of Phoenix Sky Harbor airport (south
of Downtown). The map of the proposed boundary is attached as Exhibit B.

CONCLUSION
This text amendment is quite extensive due to the need to apply development
regulations consistently for both single-family housing and middle housing, in addition to
making sure that middle housing is permitted where required. All of the revisions
proposed are directly related to changes needed to allow middle housing as required by
A.R.S. Section 9-462.13.

The proposed text amendment will create a Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District;
revise various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with the
requirements of Section 9-462.13, Arizona Revised Statutes; and revise various
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to correctly clarify and cross-reference the zoning
ordinance terms and provisions which were updated for compliance with the
requirements of the new state law.

Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-1-25-Y per the language in Exhibit A, and Z-3-
25-4-7-8 be approved as shown in Exhibit B.

Writer
C. DePerro
August 29, 2025

Team Leader
Tricia Gomes

Exhibits
A. Proposed Language—Z-TA-1-25-Y
B. Proposed Boundary Sketch Map—Z-3-25-4-7-8



Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-1-25-Y


Proposed Language:


Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:

Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as
follows:

***
Building Envelope: The area defined on a lot in which all improvements must be made,
including grading and alterations to existing landscaping. These include, but are not
limited to house, accessory buildings, pool, patios, driveways, visitor parking, fencing, or
walls. The building envelope defines the maximum allowable construction/improvement
area on the lot. The building envelope must be identified on all design review submittals.
THE AREA OF A LOT EXCLUSIVE OF ALL REQUIRED YARDS.

***
Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is situated. On lots with only single-family residential uses, the primary
dwelling unit shall be considered the main building. WHEN ONLY ONE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED ON A LOT, THAT PDU SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE
MAIN BUILDING. WHEN MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS
PROVIDED ON A LOT, EACH BUILDING WHICH CONTAINS A PDU SHALL BE
CONSIDERED A MAIN BUILDING.

***
Building, Open, Porch: An open building used solely for ingress and egress and not for
occupancy, at least two sides of which shall be at least 50% open.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for
residential purposes for one family and containing independent living and sleeping areas,
together with independent sanitary (toilet, sink, and bath/shower) and cooking facilities.
The presence of cooking facilities conclusively establishes the intent to use for residential
purposes.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section,
subordinate to the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same SINGLE-FAMILY lot.
ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross density.

Adaptable Dwelling Units, ADAPTABLE: A dwelling unit designed to be capable of simple
conversion into an accessible dwelling unit.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed having a
shared wall and attached foundations with the primary dwelling unit. An ADU connected
to the primary dwelling unit in any other manner shall not be considered an attached
ADU.

Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached ACCESSORY: An ADU which is constructed with no
connection to the primary dwelling unit, except as may be explicitly permitted within the
zoning ordinance. A detached ADU may include an integrated garage, carport, or porch.
Two ADUs attached to each other, but not to the primary dwelling unit, shall each be
considered a detached ADU.

Dwelling Unit, Primary (PDU): FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, a dwelling unit that is either
(1) the only dwelling unit provided on a single-family lot, or (2) the largest dwelling unit
provided on a single-family lot when the applicable zoning regulations otherwise allow an
accessory dwelling unit or other types of dwelling units. FOR A MULTI-FAMILY LOT OR
DEVELOPMENT, ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE CONSIDERED PRIMARY DWELLING
UNITS.

***
Entry, Front: An arcade, gated arch, covered porch, or COVERED patio, pergola,
COURTYARD, or similar architectural enhancement which clearly delineates the location
of, or AND path to, the front door A PRIMARY ENTRANCE, AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE
FRONT OF THE LOT.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Gross Area: The area of a lot or parcel including all dedicated streets, alleys, private
accessways roadway and/or alley easements, and canal rights-of-way. Such boundaries
shall extended to the center of existing abutting street or alley right-of-way. In the case of
an existing partial dedication or easement, the gross area shall not extend beyond what
would be the centerline of the full dedication. Further, parcels abutting: 1) a freeway; or 2)
a canal right-of-way when the abutting development has complied with the Canal Bank
Design Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab A, including landscaping of canal bank
right-of-way, shall include NO MORE THAN twenty-five feet of such right-of-way within
THE gross area.

***
Guesthouse: See "Accessory Dwelling Unit, ACCESSORY."

***
Landscape Setback, Average: Repealed.

***
Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more PRIMARY dwelling units
are provided., not including permitted accessory dwelling units.

***
Net Area: The area of a lot or parcel excluding all dedicated streets or alleys ROAD AND
CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY and roadway or alley easements. but including twenty-five
(25) feet of abutting canal right-of-way when the abutting development has complied with
the Canal Bank Design Guidelines set forth in Section 507 Tab A, including landscaping
of canal bank right-of-way.

***
PARKING, COVERED: ONE OR MORE PARKING SPACES PROTECTED FROM THE
SUN AND WEATHER BY A CARPORT, GARAGE, ROOF OVERHANG, OR OTHER
TYPE OF ROOFED STRUCTURE.

***
Perimeter: The boundaries or boundary of a lot, tract, or parcel of land, PLATTED
SUBDIVISION, OR DEVELOPMENT.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Planned Residential Development: A DEVELOPMENT OPTION CONSISTING OF a
group of dwelling units with common OPEN SPACE areas which are designed as an
integrated functional unit A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT and with the permissibility of
potential bonus density and considerable flexibility in the selection of building setbacks,
lot areas, DWELLING UNIT TYPES, and street configurationS as long as the public
health, safety and welfare are maintained.

***
PORCH: A STRUCTURE, WITH OR WITHOUT A ROOF, THAT IS ATTACHED TO A
BUILDING AND IS AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OPEN ON THE UNATTACHED SIDE(S).

Porch, Open: See "Building, Open Porch".

***
Primary Entrance: A ground floor entrance to a commercial lobby or suite that is open to
the public during business hours, or an THE MAIN/VISITOR entrance to a SHARED
residential courtyard, unit, or lobby OR A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. Emergency,
service and storage room entrances are not a primary entranceS.

***
Projection: Any element or embellishment attached to a structure for environmental
protection or architectural enhancement which does not support any portion of
the structure. ANY PORTION OF A PERMITTED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE THAT IS
ATTACHED TO THE MAIN BUILDING AND EXTENDS FROM THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE INTO A REQUIRED YARD OR SETBACK. A PROJECTION IS
CONSIDERED “OPEN” WHEN ALSO MEETING THE DEFINITION OF “OPEN
BUILDING”.

***
Residential Density: The number of dwelling units divided by the gross acres of the
legally described development area.

***
Setback, Landscaped, Average: The averaging of a required setback to encourage
variation along a single continuous plane of a building, perimeter wall or street frontage.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

SETBACK, GARAGE DOOR / CARPORT ENTRY: THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STREET AND COVERED PARKING. THIS DISTANCE
SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THE
GARAGE DOOR OR CARPORT, UNLESS THE PROPERTY HAS AN EASEMENT
DEDICATED ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FOR A SIDEWALK OR TRAIL, IN
WHICH CASE THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE LOT SIDE OF THE
EASEMENT TO THE FACE OF THE GARAGE DOOR OR CARPORT.

SETBACK, LANDSCAPE: A SETBACK WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO THE FOLLOWING
IMPROVEMENTS: LIVE PLANT MATERIALS SUCH AS TREES, SHRUBS, AND
GROUNDCOVERS WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM; SIDEWALKS;
REQUIRED DRAINAGE FACILITIES; ENTRY MONUMENTS; SIGNS; PUBLIC ART
INSTALLATIONS, AND WALLS AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THIS ORDINANCE.
PARKING AND MANEUVERING IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN A LANDSCAPE
SETBACK EXCEPT FOR APPROVED STREET AND DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS.

***
Shade Structure: A structure, such as a pergola, arbor, or open COVERED porch, which
is designed and used for protection OF OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS from the sun and
which contains at least HAS A MINIMUM OF one (1) side which is at least fifty 50 percent
(50%) open.

***
STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT: THE TYPE OR CLASS OF STREET ON
WHICH THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT MUST ABUT.

***
STREET, PERIMETER: ANY PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY WHICH
FORMS THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF A SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. THIS
DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CANAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY, UNLESS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ALSO A NAMED STREET USED
FOR THE LEGAL ADDRESSES OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into three or more lots, tracts or
parcels PARCELS of which the original land area is greater than two and one half acres,
Land for which a subdivision plat has been APPROVED AND recorded IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE SECTION 32-32, OR
BY MARICOPA COUNTY IF RECORDED PRIOR TO ANNEXATION., and for any
condominium, community apartment, townhouse or similar project.

Subdivision, Average Lot: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the
number of dwelling units LOTS in a development rather than by minimum lot size. SEE
“PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”.

Subdivision, Conventional: A subdivision in which residential density is controlled by the
density provisions within each zoning district, and by development standards related to
lot width, the management of stormwater, the provision of infrastructure requirements
and constraints related to the property topography or configuration. SEE “SUBDIVISION,
STANDARD”.

Subdivision, Planned Residential Development: See "Planned Residential Development".

SUBDIVISION, Single-Family Infill (SFI) Development: A type of single-family
development consisting of townhouses and a limited number of detached dwelling units.
Perimeter standards are defined and potential bonus density and design flexibility allow
for quality individual property ownership within a larger development. A SUBDIVISION
APPROVED AND DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.

SUBDIVISION, STANDARD: A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE STANDARD OPTION OF A
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. A SUBDIVISION PLAT SUBTITLED “A
CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION”, “SUBDIVISION OPTION”, OR HAVING NO
SUBTITLE SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED A STANDARD SUBDIVISION.

Subdivision, Zero Lot Line: A subdivision in which the main building may be constructed
without a side yard.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TRACT: A PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED WITHIN A SUBDIVISION WHICH IS NOT
CONSIDERED A LOT AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET MINIMUM LOT
DIMENSIONS. A TRACT MAY BE DEVELOPED ONLY WITH SUBDIVISION
AMENITIES, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPE, OR OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED FOR THE TRACT IN THE
DEDICATION STATEMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT.

***
Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground
upward except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal
distance from a building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted
projects PROJECTIONS, to the property line opposite such building line in the side or
rear yards, or to the street right-of-way or easement in the front yard; provided, however,
that where a future width line is established by the provisions of this ordinance for any
street bounding the lot, then such measurement shall be taken from the line of the
building to such future width line.

***


Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A (Guidelines for Design Review) to read as
follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for Design Review

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines
indicated with the markers (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced
in the same manner as indicated in Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R),
(R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as (R).

***

C. Subdivision and Single-Family Detached RESIDENTIAL LOT Design
Review.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


8. Single-Family Detached SUBDIVISION DIVERSITY Design
Review. New single-family detached dwelling units, lots having a
single duplex or triplex, manufactured homes, and modular homes
shall be subject to design review SUBDIVISIONS HAVING AT
LEAST TEN PERCENT OF LOTS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 65
FEET IN WIDTH, AND HAVING DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS; AND MANUFACTURED AND/OR MODULAR
HOME SUBDIVISIONS REGARDLESS OF LOT WIDTH, ARE
SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW DIVERSITY GUIDELINES 8.1
THROUGH 8.4, as follows (R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where ten percent or
more of the lots are equal to or less than 65 feet in width shall
incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

(b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or
parcel of 65 feet in width or less, shall incorporate Design
Guidelines Section 8.5. This requirement includes lots with a
single duplex or triplex when not located in a subdivision
subject to Section 507 Tab A.II.C.8(a).

(c) Dwelling units on lots zoned or designated HP are exempt
from the provisions of Design Guidelines Section 8.5, so long
as the plans are reviewed and approved through historic
preservation prior to issuance of any building permits.

(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of
lot width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1
through 8.4.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

The design guidelines in each of the following sections (subdivision design,
housing design, garage treatment, and community safety) must be satisfied
in one of two ways. The first method, called the standard approach, is to
meet each of the design guidelines as written in the following tables. The
second method, called the alternative approach, allows consideration of
creative design solutions on a section by section basis, as long as the intent
of that section has been met. Either method may be used for all or some of
the following sections. For example, an applicant may choose the standard
approach for the subdivision design and garage treatment sections and the
alternative approach for the housing design and community safety sections
or the standard approach may be used for all four sections. Whether the
alternative approach is acceptable will be determined by the design advisor
of the Planning and Development Department.

Diversity: The goal of diversity is to provide a variety of subdivision and
housing designs which lend visual interest and distinctive character and
identity to the community. This goal is addressed in two subsections,
subdivision design and housing design.

8.1. Subdivision Design. Provide subdivision designs which
address the goal of diversity by incorporating these or
substantially equivalent design characteristics: 1) Vary the
building’s relationship to the street, 2) Vary the driveway
orientation or location, 3) Vary the relationship between
buildings, and 4) Vary street orientation.

Design Guidelines: All are required (R*), unless otherwise
noted.

***

8.5. Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these
individual unit design standards is to ensure a minimum level
of design quality for detached single-family dwelling units,
duplexes, manufactured homes, and modular homes. For
information on relief from requirements (R) and (R*), and
presumptions (P), refer to Section 507.C of the Zoning
Ordinance.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered
parking space located in a garage or under a carport.
(R)

(b) The front yard, excluding areas approved for vehicle
access, should be landscaped with the following
elements: (P)

(1) A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater,
drought resistant, accent tree.

(2) A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs.

(3) Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

(4) An irrigation system.

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.

(c) Required covered parking shall not be located more
than ten feet closer to the front property line than the
front entry. (R*)

Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in
front of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential
character and compatibility with surrounding residences
is negatively impacted.

(d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, nondecorative corrugated metal and fencing
made or topped with razor, concertina, or barbed wire.
(R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


(e) Development of lots with more than one dwelling unit
should provide a single, common access drive to
parking areas. (P)

Rationale: Shared access and common parking
minimize unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the
streetscape. Common parking areas also reduce the
paved area of a site.

(f) All dwelling units should provide the following
architectural design elements: (P)

(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of
the building.

(2) Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building.

(3) Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or
single doors.

(4) Materials such as untextured concrete,
unfinished block, steel panels, and shiny or
highly reflective detailing should not be used as a
predominant exterior material.

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture.

(g) Garage doors facing the public street and attached to
the primary dwelling unit should not exceed 50 percent
of the building width. (P)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic
focus of a house; they should complement and appear
subordinate to the main structure. This is particularly
important if a duplex or triplex is constructed.

(h) A front entry shall be provided that faces and is visible
from the street, and includes an architectural feature to
call attention to it (such as a porch, entry patio, stoop,
awning/canopy, courtyard, or archway). For lots having
more than one dwelling unit, a minimum of one unit
shall comply with this requirement. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade
adds to the residential character of new dwelling units
and provides eyes on the street.

(i) Manufactured homes shall provide the following
additional architectural design elements:

(1) Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall
be used as a predominant exterior material. (P)

(2) The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of
3/12 for units 28 feet or less in width and be
covered with shingles, tile or metal, excluding
aluminum. (R*)

(3) A minimum 50-square-foot recessed entry or
covered porch shall be provided along the front
entry of the building. (R*)

(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors
that are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest
finished grade. (R*)

(6) The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.

Section 507 Tab A, II.C.9 Residential Lot Design Review
9. RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW. THE FOLLOWING DESIGN
REVIEW REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS
THAT ARE 65 FEET OR LESS IN WIDTH AND HAVE FOUR OR
FEWER PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT, AND ANY LOT
HAVING A MANUFACTURED OR MODULAR HOME, WITH THE
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

a. THE LOT IS WITHIN AN APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY
INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION;

b. THE LOT IS SUBJECT TO SECTION II.C.8 (SUBDIVISION
DIVERSITY DESIGN REVIEW); OR

c. THE LOT IS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING
PERMITS.

9.1 ALL DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT SHALL EXHIBIT A
DESIGN SCALE, FORM, AND CHARACTER OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME. (P)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

RATIONALE: NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD RESPECT
THE DESIGN AND CHARACTER OF EXISTING
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS, REGARDLESS OF THE
NUMBER OF UNITS PROVIDED ON A LOT. BUILDING
MATERIALS SHOULD MATCH OR COMPLEMENT THE
MATERIALS USED ON EXISTING HOMES IN THE VICINITY.

9.2 THE FRONT YARD, EXCLUDING AREAS APPROVED FOR
VEHICLE ACCESS, SHOULD BE LANDSCAPED WITH THE
FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: (P)

(a) A MINIMUM OF ONE, TWO INCH CALIPER OR
GREATER, DROUGHT RESISTANT, ACCENT TREE.

(b) A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE GALLON OR GREATER,
DROUGHT RESISTANT SHRUBS.

(c) DUSTPROOFED WITH GROUND COVER, TURF,
ROCK, DECOMPOSED GRANITE, OR EQUIVALENT
MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(d) AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

RATIONALE: LANDSCAPING CONTRIBUTES TO AN
ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT, PROVIDES SHADE, AND
CONTRIBUTES TO NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY.

9.3 A MINIMUM OF ONE PRIMARY ENTRANCE SHALL BE
PROVIDED WHICH FACES AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE
STREET. (R*)

9.4 FOR TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, WINDOWS, BALCONIES
(WITH DOORS FOR ACCESS), OR DECKS SHALL BE
PROVIDED ON THE FRONT FAÇADE FOR A MINIMUM OF
ONE-QUARTER OF THE BUILDING WIDTH. (R*)

9.5 EACH DWELLING UNIT SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE
COVERED PARKING SPACE. (R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


9.6 FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL
BE NO WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE
BUILDING ENVELOPE AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. (R*)

9.7 GARAGES AND CARPORTS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED
MORE THAN TEN FEET CLOSER TO THE FRONT
PROPERTY LINE THAN THE CLOSEST PRIMARY
ENTRANCE. (R*)

9.8 WALLS, FENCES, AND ENCLOSURE MATERIALS SHALL
NOT INCLUDE CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH, OR WITHOUT,
PLASTIC OR METAL SLATS, SHEETING,
NONDECORATIVE CORRUGATED METAL AND FENCING
MADE OR TOPPED WITH RAZOR, CONCERTINA, OR
BARBED WIRE. (R*)

9.9 MANUFACTURED HOMES SHALL PROVIDE THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
ELEMENTS:

(a) MATERIALS SUCH AS WOOD, HARDBOARD, BRICK
VENEER, HARDIPLANK, STUCCO, OR HORIZONTAL
VINYL SIDING SHALL BE USED AS A
PREDOMINANT EXTERIOR MATERIAL. (P)

(b) THE EXPOSED ROOF PITCH SHALL BE AT A
MINIMUM OF 3/12 FOR UNITS 28 FEET OR LESS IN
WIDTH AND BE COVERED WITH SHINGLES, TILE
OR METAL, EXCLUDING ALUMINUM. (R*)

(c) A MINIMUM 50 SQUARE FOOT FRONT ENTRY
SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE STREET SIDE OF
THE BUILDING. (R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(d) PERMANENT ACCESS TO THE FRONT ENTRY
SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH MATERIALS AND
COLORS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
DWELLING UNIT. (P)

(e) A MASONRY STEM WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED
UNDER THE DWELLING UNIT WITH NO MORE THAN
SEVEN INCHES OF EXPOSED FOUNDATION
MEASURED FROM HIGHEST FINISHED GRADE. (R*)

(f) THE EXPOSED MASONRY STEM WALL COLOR
SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE TO THE DWELLING UNIT.
(P)

***


Section 608. Residential Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residential Districts.

A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide
areas of the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these
areas from the distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate
association with nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential,
limited nonresidential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are
designed to promote the creation and maintenance of areas in which individuals or
families may pursue residential activities with reasonable access to open space,
and streets or roads, in a setting which is not negatively impacted by adjacent
uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions placed upon them to limit
impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a public hearing
through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative impacts to
surrounding residential uses.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 619 and 635 are
designed to establish the character of new residential development and also to
preserve the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to new
development, these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the
development and improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the City Code.

This section applies to the residential districts in Sections 609 through 619, in
addition to Section 635 (Planned Area Development) when specified.

***
B. Applicability. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS RE-35, R1-
18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A (SECTIONS 609
THROUGH 619), AND WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS FOR OTHER
ZONING DISTRICTS.
of Development Options. The development of any parcel of land shall be in
accordance with the standards contained in any one development option as
contained in Sections 609 through 619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not
being further subdivided and located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts
(Sections 609 and 610) shall be in accordance with the requirements for the
standard subdivision development option (a), as contained in Sections 609 and
610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a subdivision platted prior to May 1, 1998,
not being further subdivided, and located in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning
districts (Sections 611 through 619), development shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the conventional subdivision option as contained in Sections 611
through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected
development option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was
subdivided or developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in
accordance with the standards under which the initial subdivision or development
occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1,
1998, shall be considered as follows:

1. Residential development with a site plan approved in accordance with
Section 507 shall be considered under the planned residential development
option.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


2. Residential development with an approved subdivision setback exhibit shall
be considered under the average lot development option if located in the
RE-35 through R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

3. Any other prior residential development shall be considered under the
development option selected when the property was subdivided.

A use permit shall not be required for new development on previously subdivided
property or property on which there is an approved site plan if the new
development is in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 608.D Residential Districts Land Use Matrix
D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

Table 608.D. Residential Districts Land Use Matrix

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ac) pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
(ADU)
(ac) Guestroom(s) pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3
Duplex np np pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4
Triplex np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5
Single-Family Attached pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64 pc64
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc6 np
SUBDIVISION up5 up5 up5 up5 up5 up6
Multi-Family np np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Residential Convenience
(ac) np np np np np np np pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8
Market
Off-Site Manufactured Home
np np np np np up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 np
Developments
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in the table.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 608.E Land Use Conditions

E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted
one single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling
units, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

a. When a lot has no more than one single-family detached primary
dwelling, two ADUs are permitted in addition to the primary dwelling
unit. A third ADU may be permitted when at least one of the ADUs
qualifies as affordable housing and the net lot size is a minimum
43,560 square feet. However, lots having a duplex or triplex, single-
family attached units or any multi-family dwelling units are not
permitted any ADUs.

b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

3. Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling unit may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

4. Duplex.

a. Single-Family Lots. One duplex is permitted per lot when allowed by
the underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must
be of the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit
two dwelling units.

b. Multi-Family Lots. Duplexes are permitted when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of
the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit the
number of dwelling units proposed.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

4. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-FAMILY LOT
WHEN THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NO
REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

5. Triplex.

a. Single-Family Lots. One triplex is permitted per lot when allowed by
the underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must
be of the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit
three dwelling units.

b. Multi-Family Lots. Triplexes are permitted when allowed by the
underlying zoning district and development option. The lot must be of
the minimum size required by the applicable density to permit the
number of dwelling units proposed.

5. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION. SFI SUBDIVISIONS PER
THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I ARE PERMITTED
WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND
BY USE PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE AREAS
DEPICTED IN FIGURE 608.I.1.

6. Single-Family Attached Dwelling Unit. One single-family attached dwelling
unit is permitted per single-family lot when allowed by the underlying zoning
district and development option.
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION—R-4A ONLY. SFI
SUBDIVISIONS PER THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I
ARE PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AND BY USE PERMIT WHEN LOCATED IN THE APPLICABLE
AREAS DEPICTED IN FIGURE 608.I.1. EXCEPT FOR THE PERMITTED
DENSITY, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL BE THE SAME AS
FOR THE R-4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, AS
MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

7. Multi-Family Dwelling Units. Multi-family dwelling units are permitted when
allowed by the underlying zoning district and development option EXCEPT
WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY
SUBDIVISION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

35. Off-site manufactured home developments are permitted with use permit
approval per Section 307, and subject to the development regulations
provided in Section 608.F.7 608.J.



Section 608.F (General Development Regulations)
F. Special GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Regulations.

1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 714, FUTURE WIDTH LINES, unless
exempted by this section.

2. In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width
prescribed for that street by the street classification map, and amendments
thereto, has been dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street
from which side the required width of dedication has been made shall be
deemed to have frontage on a street.

3. No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of
less than that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or
collector street or 25 feet for all other streets except for single-family
attached development individual dwelling units UNLESS THE LOT IS PART
OF A PLATTED SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH MODIFIED
STREET STANDARDS.

a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option
or for development built under a planned area development district, a
minimum of 16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when
all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.

(2) There are no restrictions to public access to the street.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(3) Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back
of curb.

(4) Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

(5) All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

(6) The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.

4. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

5. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the
following listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas,
noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on
which such items are displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.

b. Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

c. Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned
by persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the
premises.

d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or
ultimate use on other than the subject premises.

6. Single-Family Infill (SFI). Single-family infill development regulations may be
applied in zoning districts where the SFI development option is offered, but
only when the development falls within the infill development district
identified in the general plan, or with use permit approval within the following
areas located outside of the infill development district:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Figure 608.F.6. Single-Family Infill Development Areas




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. The SFI development option does not eliminate any redevelopment
area, special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur
between the requirements of the SFI development option and
redevelopment areas, overlay zoning districts, special planning
districts, and specific plans, the requirements of the overlay zoning
districts, special planning districts, redevelopment areas or specific
plans shall apply.

b. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the SFI development option.

c. Dwelling Units. The SFI development option is intended primarily for
single-family attached dwelling units; however, up to 20 percent of the
units in a development may be single-family detached dwelling units
to allow for variety and efficiency of design.

(1) Any provided detached dwelling units shall comply with the
same development regulations applicable to that SFI
development.

d. Design Requirements.

(1) Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a
feature such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

(2) Required covered parking spaces shall not front on perimeter
street rights-of-way.

(3) Individual unit rear yards shall not abut perimeter street ROW
or an adjacent perimeter street landscape area.

(4) Attached dwelling units constructed in a row shall not exceed a
total length of 200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide
open area.

e. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape
tract or community-maintained landscaping abutting the street,
except when within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape
tract or community-maintained landscaping abutting the street.

(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way and
adjacent to a single-family residential district or historic
preservation designated property must provide a minimum ten-
foot landscape setback. Walls/fences up to six feet high within
private rear yards may be provided within the perimeter
setback so long as the required landscape is still provided.

(4) Trees shall be provided in required landscape setbacks at a
minimum rate of 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings, as
approved by the PDD landscape architect, subject to the
following:

(a) Fifty percent of the required trees shall be minimum
one-and-one-half-inch caliper at the time of installation.

(b) Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be
minimum two-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the
time of installation.

(c) Twenty-five percent of the required trees shall be
minimum three-inch caliper or multi-trunked trees at the
time of installation.

(5) A minimum of five five-gallon shrubs per tree shall be
provided.

f. Open Space Regulations. The only walls/fences allowed within
required common area open space are required pool security fences
and other necessary security fences, as approved by PDD.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

g. Parking Requirements. Section 702 applies to SFI development,
except where specifically modified by this section.

(1) Within the Infill Development District: one parking space per
dwelling unit must be provided that is covered or located within
a garage.

(2) Within the applicable SFI area that is not located within the
infill development district: two parking spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided that are covered or located within a garage.

(3) The required spaces for each dwelling unit must be located on
the same lot as the unit for which they are provided.

(4) A minimum 0.25 additional unreserved guest parking space
per dwelling unit must be provided within
any SFI development.

h. Alley Access and Maneuvering.

(1) All maneuvering for on-site parking must be located on private
property and not in public ROW.

(2) Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is
permitted within the infill development district.

(3) Access to the site from a fully dedicated and paved alley is
permitted applicable area outside of the infill development
district if all three conditions are met, as follows:

(a) The site is not across the alley from either a single-
family or historic preservation zoning district;

(b) Alley access is specifically approved as part of the use
permit hearing; and

(c) All necessary technical appeals have been approved.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

i. Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required setbacks
along perimeter street rights-of-way.

j. Signage is subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1,
Single-Family Residential.


7. Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments. Off-site manufactured home
development is subject to use permit approval in the C-1, C-2, and C-3
districts, in addition to zoning districts indicated in Section 608.D; and
subject to the following additional development regulations:

a. The provisions of Section 703.B do not apply to off-site manufactured
home developments.

b. These regulations apply to development of a single lot or parcel, not
to be further subdivided.

c. Placement for each off-site manufactured home shall be provided as
follows:

(1) There shall be a minimum of 20 feet between off-site
manufactured homes and ten feet between awnings and
canopies. All annexes or structural additions shall be
considered part of the off-site manufactured home.

(2) There shall be at least 40 feet between off-site manufactured
homes on opposite sides of a private accessway.

(3) No off-site manufactured home, annex or structural addition
shall be closer than eight feet to any private accessway or
private drive.

d. Each off-site manufactured home space shall have private outdoor
living space of at least 150 square feet. The dimension of this space
shall be at least 15 feet in width.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

e. At each occupied off-site manufactured home space, there shall be
an enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other bulky items
convenient to the space with a storage capacity of at least 150 cubic
feet.

f. All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall be
landscaped and maintained in accordance with the approved
development review documents required under Section 507.

g. Screening the perimeter of an off-site manufactured home
development by a wall or other approved material may be required as
a condition of use permit approval.

h. There shall be a network of pedestrian walkways connecting off-site
manufactured home spaces with each other and with development
facilities and amenities.

i. If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened storage yard
or yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Such storage yards shall
have a minimum of 60 square feet of storage space for each off-site
manufactured home space in the development and shall be located
so as to not detract from surrounding properties. All boats and
recreational vehicles shall be parked in the storage yard.

j. Each off-site manufactured home shall (1) be affixed permanently to
the ground or (2) have skirting around its perimeter to screen its
wheels and undercarriage.

k. All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio antenna
system shall be underground.

l. Not more than 15 percent of the spaces in any one off-site
manufactured home development shall be developed or used for
recreational vehicles.

m. Development of off-site manufactured home communities shall be
under the planned residential development option applicable in the
underlying zoning district.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

n. Private drives may be used for access to each off-site manufactured
home.

o. There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of the off-
site manufactured home development dedicated or reserved as
usable common open space land. Common open space lands shall
be clearly designated on the plan as to the character of use and
development but shall not include:

(1) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an individual
tenant or owner; nor

(2) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way; nor

(3) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas; nor

(4) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the site; nor

(5) Golf courses.

Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure permanent
retention of open space land area resulting from the application of
these regulations, either by private reservation for the use of the
residents within the development or by dedication to the public, or a
combination thereof.

Section 608.G (Development Options)
G. Reserved.
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. EACH RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RE-35,
R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, AND R-4A) PROVIDES
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
ADDITIONALLY, DIFFERENT SETS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(“DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS”) ARE PROVIDED WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING
DISTRICTS.

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL OR LAND SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET
FORTH FOR A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

b. A DEVELOPMENT OPTION FOR A PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED
ESTABLISHED IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE:

(1) A PRELIMINARY OR FINAL SITE PLAN HAS BEEN
APPROVED FOR A PROPERTY AND IS STILL
CONSIDERED VALID PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
507.K.6.

(2) THE PROPERTY HAS STRUCTURES FOR WHICH
BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS FOR A DEVELOPMENT OPTION WHICH WAS
VALID AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.

(3) THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A PLATTED AND RECORDED
SUBDIVISION (ALSO SEE SUBSECTION G.2 BELOW).

c. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS ALREADY BEEN
ESTABLISHED FOR A PROPERTY, SUBSEQUENT
DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE
ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL PER SECTION 307 IS OBTAINED, WITH THE
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

(1) THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REZONED PER SECTION 506
(BASE ZONING ONLY; DOES NOT INCLUDE HEIGHT OR
DENSITY WAIVERS, SPECIAL PERMITS, OR ADDITION OF
OVERLAY DISTRICTS); OR

(2) THE PROPERTY IS A PREVIOUSLY PLATTED
SUBDIVISION AND THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION IS TO BE
REPLATTED; OR




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(3) THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND IS BEING PLATTED AS A
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION; OR

(4) THE PROPERTY IS PART OF A MASTER PLAT SUCH AS:
STATE PLATS; AGRICULTURAL/RANCHING
SUBDIVISIONS; PLATS USED TO MAKE DEDICATIONS
AND CREATE DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS WITHIN MASTER-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; OR OTHER ATYPICAL
SUBDIVISION PLATS AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR.

d. IF A DEVELOPMENT OPTION HAS NEVER BEEN ESTABLISHED
FOR A PROPERTY, ANY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION
MAY BE CHOSEN.

2. PLATTED SUBDIVISION LOTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OPTION STATED IN THE TITLE
OF THE PLAT, AS FOLLOWS:

a. DEVELOPMENTS HAVING AN APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN OR
APPROVED SETBACK EXHIBIT ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY INSTEAD CHOOSE TO
APPLY THE STANDARDS APPROVED PER THE PLAN/EXHIBIT, IF
DIFFERENT FROM CURRENT STANDARDS. HOWEVER, ANY
AMENDMENT TO A FINAL SITE PLAN OR SETBACK EXHIBIT
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
OPTIONS AND STANDARDS.

b. PLATS TITLED “STANDARD”, “SUBDIVISION”, “CONVENTIONAL”,
OR HAVING NO REFERENCE TO A DEVELOPMENT OPTION
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF
THE STANDARD OPTION.

c. PLATS TITLED “AVERAGE LOT” OR “PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

d. PLATS TITLED “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED” OR “SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL” SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION, IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.I.

e. PLATS TITLED “PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT” SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 635 WHEN ZONED
PAD-1 THROUGH PAD-15. OTHER PLATS WITH THE SAME
TITLE BUT NOT ZONED PAD-1 THROUGH PAD-15 SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, OR THE BASE
REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IF THE PRD OPTION IS NOT
OFFERED.

f. FOR OTHER PLAT TITLES NOT IDENTIFIED WITHIN THIS
SECTION, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL DETERMINE
THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND REGULATIONS.

3. STANDARD OPTION. WHEN A ZONING DISTRICT PROVIDES
MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FOR THE STANDARD OPTION ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR THAT
DISTRICT. IF ONLY ONE SET OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS
PROVIDED FOR A ZONING DISTRICT, THOSE STANDARDS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED THE STANDARD OPTION.

4. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION. WHEN THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS UTILIZED FOR A
SUBDIVISION AND/OR DEVELOPMENT, A SITE PLAN MUST BE
SUBMITTED, REVIEWED, AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 507. THE SITE PLAN SHALL ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE
WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PRD
OPTION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Section 608.H (Bonus Provisions)
H. Reserved. BONUS PROVISIONS.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION DENSITY BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING
THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION, SINGLE-
FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-
3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY AS
SHOWN IN TABLE 608.H.1 BY PROVIDING SITE AMENITIES AND
ENHANCEMENTS FROM TABLE 608.H.2, UP TO THE MAXIMUM
DENSITY PERMITTED BY THE DISTRICT:



TABLE 608.H.1
PERMISSIBLE DENSITY BONUS BY DISTRICT

0.05 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
RE-35 AND R1-18
EARNED

0.10 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R1-10, R1-8, AND R1-6
EARNED

0.25 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R-2, R-3, AND R-3A
EARNED

0.50 ADDITIONAL PDU/ACRE PER 10 BONUS POINTS
R-4 AND R-5
EARNED




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT

INCREASE COMMON LANDSCAPED SETBACK
10 PTS. 1. ADJACENT TO PERIMETER STREET TO A MINIMUM 20
FEET.

PROVIDE A MAJOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A
MINIMUM 1,500 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
10 PTS./FEATURE 2.
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

PROVIDE A MINOR ENTRY FEATURE WITH A
MINIMUM 1,000 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPED AREA
5 PTS./FEATURE 3.
(EXCLUSIVE OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY).

STREETSCAPE

PROVIDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS SEPARATED FROM
THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 5-FOOT WIDE PLANTING
AREA. PLANTING AREA SHALL BE PLANTED WITH
20 PTS. 4. MINIMUM 24-INCH BOX SIZE TREES PLANTED AT A
RATE OF 1 PER LOT, TURF OR 5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS
FOR EVERY TREE AND GROUND COVER; AND
SUPPLIED WITH AN ADEQUATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

PROVIDE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION FOR ALL
FRONT YARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH
10 PTS. 5.
SHALL INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF 1 24-INCH BOX TREE,
5, 5-GALLON SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER.

RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 5 BONUS POINTS FOR
5 PTS. 5A.
EACH ADDITIONAL TREE (MINIMUM 15-GALLON).




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR DRIVEWAYS AND ON-LOT
SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST
10 PTS. 6.
OF CONSISTENT ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE
FEATURES, E.G. INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS,
BORDERS.

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE STREETS. PARTIAL
10 PTS. 7. TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.

PROVIDE PARTIAL TREATMENT OF PAVING
SURFACES FOR ALL PRIVATE SIDEWALKS. PARTIAL
10 PTS. 8. TREATMENT SHALL CONSIST OF CONSISTENT
ACCENT TREATMENT FOR ALL LIKE FEATURES, E.G.,
INTERSECTIONS, CROSSWALKS, BORDERS.

2 PTS./FEATURE 9. PROVIDE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLANDS.

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET FURNITURE
5 PTS. 10. PACKAGE CONSISTING OF CUSTOM STREET SIGNS,
BUS SHELTERS AND BENCHES.

PROVIDE CUSTOM STREETLIGHT STANDARDS
5 PTS. 11.
AND/OR FIXTURES.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.H.2
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AMENITY BONUS POINTS

BONUS POINTS CATEGORY

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREETSCAPE PLAN,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR OTHER MEANS
WHICH SHALL ADDRESS VISUAL INTEREST AT A
PEDESTRIAN SCALE; RHYTHM, FORM AND MASSING;
25 PTS. 12. AND RELATIONSHIP OF UNITS TO EACH OTHER FOR
THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. SUCH PLAN SHALL
PROVIDE ELEVATIONS, COLOR OPTIONS, AND LIMIT
WHICH MODEL(S)/ELEVATION(S) MAY OR MAY NOT
BE SITED ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

PROVIDE HOUSE PLANS WHICH DEMONSTRATE AN
25 PTS. 13. ENHANCED LEVEL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS
APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR.

PROVIDE PREMIUM GRADE EXTERIOR MATERIALS
10 PTS. 14. AND FINISHES AS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN
ADVISOR.

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMON OPEN SPACE, SUCH
2 PTS. 15. THAT EACH ADDITIONAL 1% OF COMMON OPEN
SPACE EARNS 2 BONUS POINTS.

PROVIDE MAJOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
10 PTS./FEATURE 16. AMENITIES (E.G., TENNIS COURTS, POOL,
COMMUNITY MEETING ROOM).

PROVIDE MINOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES (E.G., BIKEPATH OR MULTI-USE TRAIL
WHICH PROVIDE AN INTERNAL LINKAGE WITHIN THE
5 PTS./FEATURE 17.
DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS A CONNECTION TO
SIMILAR FACILITIES LOCATED AT THE PERIMETER
OF THE SITE).




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

2. MULTI-FAMILY OPEN SPACE BONUS. WHEN UTILIZING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL OPTION, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE R-2, R-
3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS MAY EARN A ONE PERCENT
DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH TWO PERCENT OF COMMON OPEN
SPACE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

a. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SHALL
DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF COMMON OPEN SPACE AS
PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN SPACE
SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

1. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

2. VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

3. PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS BETWEEN OR
IN FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN GENERAL, AREAS
RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL
TENANTS.

4. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE EXTERIOR
BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

5. GOLF COURSES.

b. IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. IN ORDER TO OVERCOME A
DEMONSTRATED DEFICIENCY IN THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING FOR
PERSONS OF LOW INCOME, INCENTIVES ARE ESTABLISHED TO
FOSTER THE PROVISION OF SUCH HOUSING.

a. APPLICABILITY. ALL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN A
ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
608 PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 202.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

b. DENSITY BONUS.

(1) ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR EVERY
TWO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, PROVIDED THAT
THE OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED 10
PERCENT BEYOND THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE
ALLOWED.

(2) A DENSITY BONUS AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR ANY DISTRICT
AND MAY BE IN ADDITION TO A DENSITY BONUS
EARNED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 608.H.1 or
608.H.2.

c. OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS
WITHIN A PROJECT SHALL BE AS APPROVED BY THE HOUSING
DEPARTMENT.

Section 608.I (Single-Family Infill Subdivisions)
I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the
development standards tables for each district:

1. Minimum lot dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site.

a. Density Bonus Points. Additional density may be granted by earning
density bonus points by providing site enhancements from the table
below, as follows:

(1) Single-family detached development in the R1-10 through R1-
6 districts (Sections 611 through 613) may earn increased
density of 0.1 du/ac for each ten density bonus points earned
when also using the planned residential development option,
up to the maximum density allowed by the district.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(2) Single-family detached development in the R-2 through R-4A
districts (Sections 614 through 619) may earn increased
density of 0.275 du/ac for each five density bonus points
earned when also using the planned residential development
option, up to the maximum density allowed by the district.
However, at least half of the bonus points used to achieve
densities in excess of 7.5 du/ac must be from the architectural
design bonus point category.


Bonus Points Enhancement Category
PERIMETER/BACKUP TREATMENT
10 pts. 1. Increase common landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter street to 20' avg./15' minimum.

10 pts./feature 2. Provide a major entry feature with a minimum 1,500
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter
landscaping and right-of-way).

5 pts./feature 3. Provide a minor entry feature with a minimum 1,000
sq. ft. of landscaped area (exclusive of perimeter
landscaping and right-of-way).

STREETSCAPE

20 pts. 1. Provide detached sidewalks separated from the curb
by a minimum 5'-wide planting area. Planting area
shall be planted with minimum 24"-box size trees
planted at a rate of 1 per lot, turf or 5 5-gallon shrubs
for every tree and ground cover; and supplied with
an adequate irrigation system.

10 pts. 2. Provide landscaping and irrigation for all front yards
within the development which shall include a
minimum of 1 24"-box tree, 5 5-gallon shrubs, and
ground cover.

5 pts. 2a. Receive an additional 5 bonus points for each
additional tree (minimum 15-gallon).

10 pts. 3. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for
driveways and on-lot sidewalks. Partial treatment




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

shall consist of consistent accent treatment for all
like features, e.g. intersections, crosswalks, borders.

10 pts. 4. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private streets. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

10 pts. 5. Provide partial treatment of paving surfaces for all
private sidewalks. Partial treatment shall consist of
consistent accent treatment for all like features, e.g.,
intersections, crosswalks, borders.

2 pts./feature 6. Provide landscaped median islands.

5 pts. 7. Provide a comprehensive street furniture package
consisting of custom street signs, bus shelters and
benches.

5 pts. 8 Provide custom streetlight standards and/or fixtures.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

25 pts. 1. Provide a comprehensive streetscape plan,
development agreement or other means which shall
address visual interest at a pedestrian scale; rhythm,
form and massing; and relationship of units to each
other for the entire subdivision. Such plan shall
provide elevations, color options, and limit which
model(s)/elevation(s) may or may not be sited on
individual lots.

25 pts. 2. Provide house plans which demonstrate an
enhanced level of architectural design as approved
by the design advisor.

10 pts. 3. Provide premium grade exterior materials and
finishes as approved by the design advisor.

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

2 pts. 1. Provide additional common area, such that each
additional 1% of common area earns 2 bonus points.

10 pts./feature 2. Provide major private recreational amenities (e.g.,
tennis courts, pool, community meeting room).




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

5 pts./feature 3. Provide minor private recreational amenities (e.g.,
bikepath or multi-use trail which provide an internal
linkage within the development as well as a
connection to similar facilities located at the
perimeter of the site).


b. Additional Common Area/Open Space. Additional density may be
granted by providing additional common area above any minimum
requirements as follows:

(1) Qualifying developments (listed below) may earn:

(a) A one percent density bonus for each four percent of
basic common area; or

(b) A one percent density bonus for each two percent of
improved common area.

(c) The Planning and Development Department shall
determine the adequacy of both basic and improved
common areas as part of the development review
process. Open space shall not include:

(i) Public right-of-way.

(ii) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(iii) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in
front of units; or, in general, areas reserved for
the exclusive use of individual tenants.

(iv) Required setback areas at the exterior
boundaries of the site.

(v) Golf courses.

(d) In no case shall the density of the development exceed
the maximum density allowed by the district.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(2) Developments qualifying for the additional common area/open
space density bonus are as follows:

(a) Single-family development in the RE-35 and R1-18
zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610), when also
using the planned residential development option.

(b) Single-family attached development in the R1-10
through R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through
619), when using the planned residential development
option.

(c) Single-family development in the R-2 through R-4A
zoning districts (Sections 614 through 619), when using
the single-family infill development option.

(d) Multi-family development in the R1-10 through R-4A
zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619), when using
the planned residential development option.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2.

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed Development: The development options tables provided in
Sections 609 through 619 indicate the only types of residential development
permitted under each development option and associated development
regulations. The complete list of all permitted uses, including accessory and
temporary uses, is provided in Section 608.C.

9. Required review: Development review in accordance with Section 507 of
this ordinance, and subdivision review in accordance with chapter 32 of the
Phoenix City Code when new lots are created.

10. Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.




***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

I. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS.

1. APPLICABILITY. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL REGULATIONS OF THIS
SECTION SHALL APPLY TO SUBDIVISIONS MEETING ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

a. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT ZONED HP OR HP-L, NOR
DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORICAL PLACES.

b. THE SUBDIVISION IS ZONED R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1,
C-2, C-3, DTC, OR WU CODE;

c. THE SUBDIVISION EITHER UTILIZES THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) OPTION, OR THE DISTRICT
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT AN SFI SUBDIVISION MAY BE
DEVELOPED PER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;

d. THE SUBDIVISION IS EITHER LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN,
OR THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA
IDENTIFIED AS “APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS OBTAINED
USE PERMIT APPROVAL; AND

e. FOR EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS RECORDED PRIOR TO 2024
ONLY: THE PLAT HAS THE SUBTITLE “A SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED SUBDIVISION”; “A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
SUBDIVISION”; “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION”; OR ANOTHER ANALOGOUS SUBTITLE AS
DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

FIGURE 608.I.1
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AREAS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

2. SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND REDEVELOPMENT
AREAS, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

3. SFI DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

a. THE FOLLOWING TABLE PROVIDES MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPED UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION:

TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISIONS

LOT WIDTH
(1) 20 FEET
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
(3) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS
(4) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MAXIMUM)

INDIVIDUAL LOT SETBACKS
(5) NONE
(MINIMUM)

GARAGE DOOR/CARPORT
(6) ENTRY SETBACK THREE FEET
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.c

PERIMETER STREET, FRONT: 10 FEET
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER PERIMETER STREET, SIDE: 15 FEET
(8) BUILDING SETBACKS
(MINIMUM) PERIMETER STREET, REAR: PER SECTION 608.I.4.d
OTHER PERIMETER: 10 FEET




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 608.I.3:
MODIFIED PRD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISIONS

10 FEET, REQUIRED TO BE
PERIMETER STREET
COMMUNITY/ASSOCIATION MAINTAINED. MAY BE
(9) LANDSCAPE SETBACKS
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM)
SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) PER SECTION 608.I.3.b
(MAXIMUM)

LOT COVERAGE INDIVIDUAL LOTS: NO MAXIMUM
(11)
(MAXIMUM) OTHER PARCELS/TRACTS: 50%

COMMON OPEN SPACE
(12) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE
(13) PER SECTION 608.I.7
REQUIREMENTS

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE
OTHER APPLICABLE
(14) DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507 TAB A
REGULATIONS:
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


b. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

(1) IN ALL DISTRICTS, THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT
MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE
INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED HEIGHT.

(2) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED R-5, THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED HEIGHT IS 48 FEET.

(3) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DTC, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
SHALL BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE
CHARACTER AREA.

(4) FOR PROPERTIES ZONED WU CODE, THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT SHALL BE AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE
TRANSECT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(5) IN ALL OTHER DISTRICTS, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT IS 40 FEET WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER, WITH A ONE-FOOT HEIGHT
INCREASE PERMITTED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE-
FOOT SETBACK TO A MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF
48 FEET.

c. ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT ARE APPLICABLE UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
SECTION.

4. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.

a. INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SHALL PROVIDE A FRONT ENTRY THAT IS EITHER ELEVATED,
DEPRESSED OR INCLUDES A FEATURE SUCH AS A LOW WALL
TO ACCENTUATE THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE. (R*)

b. REQUIRED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT FRONT ON OR BE
ACCESSED FROM A PERIMETER STREET. (R*)

c. FRONT-FACING GARAGE DOORS AND CARPORTS SHALL BE
NO WIDER THAN 50 PERCENT OF WIDTH OF THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE AS MEASURED AT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK. (R*)

d. NO REAR PROPERTY LINE OF ANY LOT IN AN SFI SUBDIVISION
SHALL ABUT EITHER A PERIMETER STREET OR AN
ASSOCIATED PERIMETER STREET LANDSCAPE SETBACK
AREA. (R*)

e. ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW SHALL
NOT EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET WITHOUT HAVING
A MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN AREA. (R*)

5. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) FIFTY PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT THE
TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(2) TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES
SHALL BE MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(3) TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED TREES
SHALL BE MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

b. A MINIMUM OF FIVE, FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL
BE PROVIDED. (T)

6. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI
DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THIS
SECTION.

a. A MINIMUM OF ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE PER
DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT AS
THE UNIT FOR WHICH IT IS PROVIDED.

b. COVERED PARKING SETBACKS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE
LARGER THAN THE BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR THE
DWELLING UNIT.

c. A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST PARKING
SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN
ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

7. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE LOCATED
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY. (T)

b. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM A PUBLIC STREET OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY IS PERMITTED. (T)

c. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS
PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM
PAVING STANDARDS FOR THE ALLEY. (T)

d. ACCESS TO AN SFI SUBDIVISION FROM AN ALLEY IS
PERMITTED WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1, WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) THE SFI SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ACROSS THE
ALLEY FROM EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HP ZONING
DISTRICT. (R)

(2) THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS
APPROVED MINIMUM WIDTH AND MINIMUM PAVING
STANDARDS FOR THE ALLEY. (T)

e. INDIVIDUAL LOTS MAY FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVE, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY
TO ALLOW FOR SUFFICIENT MANEUVERING AND PUBLIC
UTILITY ACCESS. (T)

8. WALLS/FENCES.

a. THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN
REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS IS 40 INCHES.
(R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

b. THE MAXIMUM WALL/FENCE HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREAS IS 40 INCHES, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF REQUIRED POOL FENCES AND OTHER
NECESSARY VIEW FENCES, AS APPROVED BY PDD. (R*)

9. SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION
705, TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

Section 608.J (Off-Site Manufactured Home Developments)

J. Incentives for Affordable Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency
in the supply of housing for persons of low and moderate income, incentives are
established to foster the provision of such housing.

1. Applicability. All development located within a zoning district subject to the
provisions of Section 608 providing affordable housing as defined in Section
202.

2. Density Bonus.

a. One additional unit shall be allowed for every two affordable housing
units; provided, that the overall project density does not exceed ten
percent beyond that which would otherwise be allowed.

b. A density bonus awarded per this section shall apply to the maximum
density for any district and may be in addition to a density bonus
earned per the provisions of Section 608.I.2.

3. Other Requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing.

J. OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO ZONING
DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:

1. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

2. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE LOT
OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


3. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL BE
PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

a. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS
AND CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS
SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME.

b. THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST 40 FEET BETWEEN OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF A PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY.

c. NO OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT FEET
TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

4. EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE FEET.
THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST 15 FEET IN
WIDTH.

5. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD
TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE WITH
A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 150 CUBIC FEET.

6. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED SURFACES
SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS REQUIRED
UNDER SECTION 507.

7. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL
MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

8. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH EACH
OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND AMENITIES.

9. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A SCREENED
STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,
ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60
SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE FOR EACH OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL
BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE
PARKED IN THE STORAGE YARD.

10. EACH OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL (1) BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR (2) HAVE SKIRTING AROUND
ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND UNDERCARRIAGE.

11. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION OR
RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

12. NOT MORE THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY ONE OFF-
SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DEVELOPED
OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

13. DEVELOPMENT OF OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES
SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

14. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME.

15. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
AREA OF THE OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT
DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON OPEN SPACE
LAND. COMMON OPEN SPACE LANDS SHALL BE CLEARLY
DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE CHARACTER OF USE AND
DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

a. AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR BENEFIT OF
AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

b. DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS-
OF-WAY; NOR

c. VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR

d. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF
THE SITE; NOR

e. GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF OPEN SPACE LAND AREA RESULTING
FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS, EITHER BY
PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN
THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC, OR A
COMBINATION THEREOF.

***
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in the
RE-35 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 150' width, 175' depth 100' width, 125' depth None
dimensions (width (Minimum area 35,000
and depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 1.10 1.10 1.15; 1.32 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None 40' front or rear, 20' 40' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to be in
common ownership unless
lots front on the perimeter
public street; 20' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 40' front, 40' rear, 20' 25' front, 50' total front 25' front
side and rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, plus an additional 30%, plus an additional
structures are less than 10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or
20' and 1 story in height attached shade attached shade structures.
then a maximum of structures. Total: 40%. Total: 40%.
40% lot coverage is
allowed.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed development Single-family detached Single-family attached; Single-family attached; plus
plus (a) (a)

Required review Subdivision to create 4 Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
or more lots building setbacks

Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway (1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.


TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 150 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 175 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 1.2 PDU/AC (GROSS)
1.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 1.2 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 1.5 WITH BONUS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

FRONT: 25 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 40 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS REAR: 40 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) SIDES: 20 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 40 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 20 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 20 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
STREET WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED BUILDING
(MINIMUM) SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

25%, EXCEPT IF ALL
STRUCTURES ARE LESS
THAN 20' AND 1 STORY IN
LOT COVERAGE
(11) HEIGHT THEN A MAXIMUM 40% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
OF 40% LOT COVERAGE IS
ALLOWED.


COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 609.1 RE-35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER
OTHER CODE;
32, CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507 TAB
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used IN
THE R1-18 DISTRICT for each district. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Illustrations of Development Options


Table 610.A
R1-18 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' depth 90' width, 80' depth None
dimensions (width (Minimum area 18,000
and depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front or rear, 10' 20' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street; 15'
adjacent to property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 30' rear, 10' 25' front, 50' total front 25' front
side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 30%, plus an additional 30%, plus an additional 30%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade attached shade attached shade structures
structures structures
Total: 40%
Total: 40% Total: 40%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 610.A
R1-18 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Allowed development Single-family detached Single-family attached; Single-family attached; plus
plus (a) (a)

Required review Subdivision to create 4 Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
or more lots building setbacks

Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway (1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.


TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 130 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 120 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 2.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
2.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 2.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 2.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS REAR: 30 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 610.1 R1-18 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE WHERE
STREET LOTS FRONT ON PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

30%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 40% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 40%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***


B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R1-10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.



Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except None, except
110' adjacent to freeway or 110' adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial


Dwelling 3.0 3.5; 4.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2)(front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); landscape setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2) (Does not apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None


Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths,
for lots >70': no maximum for lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that
3 stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50% plus an additional 10% for 50% plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.A
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and subdivision to Section 507, and subdivision to
create 4 or more lots create 4 or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)


Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to 30
feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the
development standards of Table 611.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards
Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot dimensions 80' width, 94' depth 60' width, 65' depth None
(width and depth)
(Minimum area
10,000 sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 3.50 3.50 3.68; 4.20 with bonus
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards None 30' front, 25' rear, 20' adjacent to a public
10' side street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street; 15'
adjacent to property line


Building setbacks 25' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front 10' front
and 3' side plus rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories


Lot coverage 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional
additional 10% for an additional 10% for 10% for an ADU and/or
ADU and/or attached an ADU and/or attached shade structures.
shade structures. attached shade
structures. Total: 60%
Total: 60%




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 611.B
R1-10 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)


(c)
(a) (b)
Standards
Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Total: 60%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family Single-family Multi-family plus (b)
detached(3) and attached; plus (a)
duplex


Required review Subdivision to create Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
4 or more lots building setbacks


Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 80 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 3.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
4.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 3.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 4.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 611.1 R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
STREET WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District

***


B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R1-8 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.



Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 4.0 4.5; 5.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story); Property line
(side): 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum
landscaped setback adjacent to
perimeter streets(2) (Does not apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus additional 10% for an 50%, plus additional 10% for an
ADU and/or attached shade ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.A
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the
development standards of Table 612.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)



(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot dimensions 70' width, 94' depth 50' width, 65' depth None
(width and depth)
(Minimum area 8,000
sq. ft.)


Dwelling 4.30 4.30 4.52; 5.16 with bonus
unit density (units/gross
acre)


Perimeter standards None 25' front or rear 10' side 20' adjacent to a public
street(2); this area is to be
in common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line


Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front plus 10' front
and 3' side rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to
48' high and 4 stories

50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional 50%, plus an additional
Lot coverage
additional 10% for 10% for an ADU and/or 10% for an ADU and/or
an ADU and/or attached shade attached shade structures
attached shade structures
Total: 60%
structures
Total: 60%
Total: 60%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 612.B
R1-8 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999)



(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Allowed development Single- Single-family attached; Multi-family plus (b)
family detached(3) an plus (a)
d duplex


Required review Subdivision to create Subdivision with Site plan per Section 507
4 or more lots building setbacks


Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to June 2, 1999.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 70 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 4.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
5.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 4.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 5.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE WHERE
STREET LOTS FRONT ON PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 612.1 R1-8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District

***


B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R1-6 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR
PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 5.5; 6.5 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum(Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 613.A
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 613.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


Planned Residential
Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Minimum lot 60' width, 94' depth 40' width, 60' depth None
dimensions (width and (Minimum area 6,000
depth) sq. ft.)


Dwelling unit density 5.30 5.30 5.54; 6.34 with bonus
(units/gross acre)


Perimeter standards None 25' front or rear 10' 20' adjacent to a public
side street(2); this area is to be in
common ownership unless
lots front on the perimeter
public street; 15' adjacent
to property line


Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' 10' front, 35' front 10' front
and 3' side plus rear


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for first
150'; 1' in 5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 50%, plus an 50%, plus an additional
10% for an ADU and/or additional 10% for an 10% for an ADU and/or
attached shade ADU and/or attached attached shade structures
structures shade structures
Total: 60%
Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 613.B
R1-6 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


Planned Residential
Standards Subdivision Average Lot
Development


Allowed development Single-family Single-family Multi-family plus (b)
detached(3) and duplex attached plus (a)


Required review Subdivision to create 4 Subdivision with Development review per
or more lots building setbacks Section 507


Street standards Public street required Public street Public street or private
accessway(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE.
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 5.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
6.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 5.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 6.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
(8) BUILDING NONE.
OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15 FEET
SETBACK
(MINIMUM)

PERIMETER 15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON LOTS
STREET WHICH FRONT ON A PERIMETER
(9) LANDSCAPE NONE. STREET. MAY BE PROVIDED AS
SETBACK PART OF THE REQUIRED
(MINIMUM) BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET 3 STORIES AND 30 FEET
(MAXIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 613.1 R1-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE
(11) ATTACHED SHADE 60% TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
(MAXIMUM)
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE. 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET
PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET
ACCESSWAY
REQUIREMENT

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
OTHER CODE;
CITY CODE;
(14) APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION
REGULATIONS: TAB A;
507 TAB A
BONUS: SECTION 608.H


Section 614. R-2 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-2 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 614.A
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 614.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.


Dwelling unit 10.50; 12.00 with 10.50; 12.00 with
density 10.0 10.0 bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)


10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street(2);
rights-of-way; 15'
this area is to be
for units siding
in common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 25' front or rear ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street; 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line


20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none


3 stories or 40' for
2 stories and 30'
first 150'; 1' in 1'
for first 150'; 1' in
Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' increase to 48'
5' increase to 48'
height, 4-story
high and 4 stories
maximum(5)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
structures
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60%


Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area


Single-family
attached and
Single-family single-family
Allowed Single-family Multi-family plus
detached(3) and detached (per the
development attached plus (a) (b)
duplex provisions of
Section 608.F.6
only)


Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Table 614.B
R-2 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)


(c)
(d)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned
Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development


Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
10.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 10.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
12.0 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 10.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 10.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 12.0 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 25 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT 18 FEET FRONT OR STREET
(6)
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS. SIDE
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 614.1 R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.



Section 615. R-3 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 615. R-3 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

***
A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-3 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.A
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 615.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
15.23; 17.40 with 15.23; 17.40 with
density 14.5 14.5
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

25' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

2 stories and 30' 3 stories or 40' for
for first 150'; 1' in first 150'; 1' in 1'
Maximum height 2 stories and 30'(5) 2 stories and 30'(5) 5' increase to 48' increase to 48'
height, 4-story height, 4-story
maximum(5) maximum(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 615.B
R-3 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per the
development
attached and attached and attached and provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
15.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 14.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
17.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 15.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 14.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 17.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 615.1 R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 30 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.

Section 616. R-3A Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Section 616. R-3A Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.A
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 616.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
23.1; 26.4 with 23.1; 26.4 with
density 22 22
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

25' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

3 stories or 40' for 3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in 1'
Maximum height 3 stories or 40'(5) 3 stories or 40'(5) increase to 48' increase to 48'
height, 4-story height, 4-story
maximum(5) maximum(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 616.B
R-3A Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per the
development
attached and attached and attached and provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
23.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 22.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
26.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 23.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 22.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 26.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 25 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 616.1 R-3A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.



Section 617. R-4 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 617. R-4 Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence District

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishES standards to be used in
the R-4 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.A
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 617.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
30.45; 34.80 with 30.45; 34.80 with
density 29.0 29.0
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

20' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

3 stories or 40' for 3 stories or 40' for
first 150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in 1'
Maximum height 3 stories or 40'(5) 3 stories or 40'(5) increase to 48' increase to 48'
height, 4-story height, 4-story
maximum(5) maximum(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 617.B
R-4 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
Single-family Single-family Single-family attached and
detached(3), detached(3), detached(3), single-family
Allowed
single-family single-family single-family detached (per the
development
attached and attached and attached and provisions of
multi-family multi-family multi-family Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
30.0 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 29.0 PDU/AC (GROSS)
35.0 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 30.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 29.0 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 35.0 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS.
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 617.1 R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

3 STORIES AND 40 FEET FOR
FIRST 150 FEET FROM
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER;
BUILDING HEIGHT ONE FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE
(10) 3 STORIES AND 40 FEET**
(MAXIMUM) FOR EACH FIVE FEET IN
SETBACK INCREASE TO
MAXIMUM 4 STORIES AND 48
FEET HIGH**

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.



Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multi-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


Section 618. R-5 Multi-Family Residence District—Restricted Commercial

A. Purpose. The purpose of the multi-family residence districts is to provide for
alternate living styles including rental, condominiums and single ownership of
land with multiple units thereon or single or attached townhomes.

The density ranges offered are intended to allow for a greater interaction of
residents with at least the opportunity for less individual maintenance, unit cost,
and size as compared with a conventional single-family residence.

The TWO design DEVELOPMENT options, of average lot subdivision,
STANDARD and planned residential DEVELOPMENT, and single-family
attached development are intended to provide flexibility as to unit placement,
variable yard requirements, more reasonable and practical use of open spaces,
staggered height limits up to three and four stories and more standardized
parking and street improvement requirements. Bonus provisions are intended to
facilitate and enhance the utilization of smaller infill parcels as well as unusual
and irregular parcels throughout the City.

Along with the freedom that the multi-family district offers are certain
responsibilities which must be met for project residents, but more importantly for
the overall adjacent neighborhood. These are expressed in terms of standards
and performance criteria. The standards internal to a project are intended to
increase livability with amenities including landscaping, recreational facilities and
project design. On the other hand the exterior standards provide a better fit, [and]
better the project and the neighborhood environs. Criteria relating to setbacks,
screening and landscaping are intended to reduce noise, maintain privacy and
minimize psychological feelings to a change in development character and avoid
any adverse effect on property values.

B. District Regulations—Residential Uses. The following tables establishES
standards to be used in the R-5 district. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.I. The single-family infill development option
must meet Section 608.F.6 requirements. REFER TO SECTION 608,
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR PERMITTED USES AND ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless approved
by either the design advisor or
the Design Review Committee
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes the
impact of the garage


Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent to None, except 110' adjacent to
freeway or arterial freeway or arterial


Dwelling 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
unit density (units/gross acre)


Minimum perimeter building setb Front: 15'; Street(2) (front, rear or side): 15'
acks (in addition to landscape
Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2-story); setback);

Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-story),
20' (2-story);

Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)


Common None 15' average, 10' minimum (Does
landscaped setback adjacent to not apply to lots fronting onto
perimeter streets(2) perimeter streets)


Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; combined Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks front and rear: 35', street side: (established by Building Code);
10'; sides: 13' total (3' minimum, street side: 10'; sides: none
unless 0') (established by Building Code)


Minimum building separation 10' None




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
front-loaded garages, 10' from front-loaded garages, 10' from
property line for side-loaded property line for side-loaded
garages garages


Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, for For lots <60': 2 car widths, for
lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum


Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except that 3
stories not exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved by the
design advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)


Lot coverage 50%, plus an additional 10% for 50%, plus an additional 10% for
an ADU and/or attached shade an ADU and/or attached shade
structures structures

Total: 60% Total: 60%


Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area


Allowed development Single-family detached(3) Single-family detached(3)


Required review Development review per Section Development review per Section
507, and subdivision to create 4 507, and subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots


Street standards Public street or private Public street or private
accessway(1) accessway(1)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.A
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Detached Development(3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on species) or
in equivalent groupings, and 5
shrubs per tree.



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) For single-family detached development built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the
development standards of Table 618.B.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' Development site:
40' width, 60'
dimensions (width depth (Minimum None none. Individual
depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.) dwelling lot: 20'.

Dwelling unit
45.68;52.20 with 45.68;52.20 with
density 43.5 43.5
bonus bonus
(units/gross acre)

10' for units
20' adjacent to a
fronting street
public street; this
rights-of-way; 15'
area is to be in
for units siding
common
street rights-of-
Perimeter 20' front, 15' rear, ownership unless
None way. This area is
standards 10' side lots front on the
to be in common
perimeter public
ownership or
street(2); 15'
management. 10'
adjacent to
adjacent to
property line
property line

20' front, 15' rear, 10' front, 30' front Individual unit lot:
Building setbacks 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear none

Maximum height 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5) 4 stories or 48'(5)

50%, plus an 50%, plus an 50%, plus an 100% for each
additional 10% for additional 10% for additional 10% for individual lot. 50%
an ADU and/or an ADU and/or an ADU and/or for other parcels
Lot coverage
attached shade attached shade attached shade or tracts with
structures structures structures accessory
Total: 60% Total: 60% Total: 60% structures

Minimum 5% of Minimum 5% of
Common areas None None
gross area gross area




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Table 618.B
R-5 Development Options
Single-Family Attached and Multi-Family Development, and
Single-Family Detached Development (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998)

(c)
(d)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards Single-Family
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Infill(4)
Development

Single-family
attached and
Single-family Single-family Single-family
single-family
Allowed detached, single- detached, single- detached, single-
detached (per the
development family attached family attached family attached
provisions of
and multi-family and multi-family and multi-family
Section 608.F.6
only)

Subdivision to Development Development
Subdivision with
Required review create 4 or more review per review per
building setbacks
lots Section 507 Section 507

Development site:
public street,
public alley, or
Public street or private
Public street
Street standards Public street private accessway.
required
accessway(1) Individual unit lot:
private
accessway, or
private drive(1)


(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for extensions of
street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public street rights-
of-way.

(3) The only single-family detached developments that the standards of the table apply to are ones
built or subdivided prior to May 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family infill development option must comply with the additional development
regulations provided in Section 608.F.6.

(5) There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned district, which
height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building setback to the maximum
permitted height.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT WIDTH
(1) 60 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

LOT DEPTH
(2) 94 FEET NONE
(MINIMUM)

DEVELOPMENT
45.5 PDU/AC (GROSS);
(3) DENSITY 43.5 PDU/AC (GROSS)
52.5 WITH BONUS
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED LOTS 45.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS);
(4) 43.5 LOTS/AC (GROSS)
(MAXIMUM) 52.5 WITH BONUS

FRONT: 20 FEET
FRONT: 10 FEET
INDIVIDUAL LOT REAR: 15 FEET
REAR: NONE
(5) SETBACKS STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
STREET SIDE: 10 FEET
(MINIMUM) INTERIOR SIDES: 10 FEET
INTERIOR SIDES: NONE
AND 3 FEET

GARAGE
DOOR/CARPORT SAME AS INDIVIDUAL LOT
(6) FRONT: 18 FEET
ENTRY SETBACK SETBACKS
(MINIMUM)

(7) PROJECTIONS PER SECTION 701.A.3.A PER SECTION 701.A.3.B

DEVELOPMENT
PERIMETER STREET: 20 FEET.
PERIMETER
(8) NONE OTHER PROPERTY LINE: 15
BUILDING SETBACK
FEET
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET, EXCEPT NONE ON
PERIMETER STREET
LOTS WHICH FRONT ON A
LANDSCAPE
(9) NONE PERIMETER STREET. MAY BE
SETBACK
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
(MINIMUM)
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING HEIGHT
(10) 4 STORIES AND 48 FEET** 4 STORIES AND 48 FEET**
(MAXIMUM)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 618.1 R-5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(B)
(A)
CATEGORY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
STANDARD OPTION
DEVELOPMENT (PRD)

50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
LOT COVERAGE 60% TOTAL FOR
(11) ATTACHED SHADE
(MAXIMUM) DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURES
TOTAL: 60%

COMMON OPEN
(12) SPACE NONE 5% OF GROSS AREA
(MINIMUM)

STREET FRONTAGE PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE
(13) PUBLIC STREET
REQUIREMENT ACCESSWAY

SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32,
SUBDIVISIONS: CHAPTER 32, CITY CODE;
CITY CODE; DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION 507
OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW: SECTION TAB A;
(14)
REGULATIONS: 507 TAB A; MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 703.B
MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION BONUS: SECTION 608.H;
703.B SFI SUBDIVISIONS: SECTION
608.I


** THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.


***


Section 619. R-4A Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 619 (Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—
General) to read as follows:

Section 619. Residential R-4A District—Multifamily MULTI-FAMILY Residence—
General

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

A. Permitted Uses. Primary uses and accessory uses are permitted as indicated in
the Residential Districts Land Use Matrix, Section 608.D, plus the following:

1. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

2. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

3. Single-family infill developments, per the provisions of Section 608.F.6 and
Table 617.B, R-4 Development Options, column D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the
following yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***

8. Single-family infill development must comply with all regulations applicable to
SFI development in the R-4 district except for density, which shall be
permitted per Section 619.B.1.

9. Off-site manufactured home developments, upon obtaining use permit
approval, shall comply with the R-4 standards for planned residential
developments (Table 617.B, column C) except for density, which shall be
permitted per Section 619.B.1.

***


Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail
Amend Chapter 6, Section 622 (Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail) to
read as follows:

Section 622. Commercial C-1 District—Neighborhood Retail.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

A. Purpose. The C-1, Commercial Neighborhood Retail District, is a district of light
neighborhood type retail and customer service uses designed to be compatible
with each other and nearby residential districts.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Section, the
following restrictions shall apply to this district:

1. All commercial uses are restricted to closed buildingS except parking lots
and liquid fuel pump services.

***

10. The sale of used merchandise in connection with the following permitted
uses when such used merchandise uses a floorspace having a total area of
no more than five (5) percent of the gross floor area of the establishment:

***

g. Audio and video rentals and retail sales.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE R-5 DISTRICT.

3. ADULT DAY CARE HOME AND CENTER

4. BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

5. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

6. GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


7. NURSING HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5 DISTRICT and R-
4A; and in addition the following:

***

2. RESERVED. Adult Day Care Home and Center

***

19. RESERVED. Boarding House, subject to a use permit

***

38. RESERVED. Community Residence Center, subject to a use permit

***

76. RESERVED. Group Home, subject to a use permit

***

120. RESERVED. Nursing Home, subject to a use permit

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.J, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial
Amend Chapter 6, Section 623 (Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial)
to read as follows:

Section 623. Commercial C-2 District —Intermediate Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-2, Commercial Intermediate District, is a district of commercial
uses of medium intensity designed to be compatible with each other and to provide
for a wide range of types of commercial activity within the district.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.

1. Except as otherwise provided, all permitted uses and storaging of materials
or supplies shall be conducted entirely within a closed building.

2. The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted
uses set forth in Section 623.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained
and subject to the following standards for the outdoor display area:

a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere
along the building except as noted in Section 623.CB.2.b;

***

9. With the exception of those instances listed above in 623.CB.7. and CB.8.,
no other types of vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or
displayed for sale on-site except by a registered vehicle retail sales
dealership and upon obtaining a special permit pursuant to Section 647.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-1 DISTRICT.

3. BOARDING HOUSE

4. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER

5. GROUP HOME

6. NURSING HOME

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, THE R-5, R-4A, and C-1
districts; and in addition the following:

***

50. RESERVED. Community Residence Center.

***

126. RESERVED. Nursing Home.

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.J, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial
Amend Chapter 6, Section 624 (Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial) to
read as follows:

Section 624. Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial.

A. Purpose. The C-3 Commercial General District, is a district designed to provide for
the intensive commercial uses necessary to the proper development of the
community.

B. Reserved.

C. B. District Restrictions.

1. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from adjacent
residential districts. No noise, odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it
exceeds the general level of noise, odor or vibration emitted by uses outside
the site. Such comparison shall be made at the boundary of the site.

2. The display of merchandise outdoors as an accessory use to the permitted
uses set forth in Section 624.D is prohibited unless a use permit is obtained
and subject to the following standards for the outdoor display area:

a. A maximum 300 square feet of display area can be located anywhere
along the building except as noted in Section 624.CB.2.b;

***

4. With the exception of those instances listed above in 624.CB.3., no other
types of vehicle built to carry passengers or cargo can be sold or displayed
for sale on-site except by a registered vehicle retail sales dealership.

C. PERMITTED USES—RESIDENTIAL.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT ONLY WITHIN SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED PER THE
PROVISIONS OF 608.I, INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL WHERE
APPLICABLE.

2. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY, AS
PERMITTED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT.

D. Permitted Uses—NON-RESIDENTIAL. All NON-RESIDENTIAL uses permitted in
R1-6 if zoned commercial prior to January 5, 1994, non-single-family residential,
and single-family attached uses permitted in R-3, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1 and THE C-2
districts; and in addition the following, including the storage of all raw materials and
finished products in connection herewith:

***

E. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. To protect surrounding neighborhoods and
preserve the public welfare, standards are herein established for yard, height and
area requirements to provide an appropriate transition between commercial uses
and adjoining neighborhoods. In recognition of the goals contained in the General
Plan for uses and intensities within core areas, greater heights and intensities are
herein encouraged.

1. Any multiple MULTI-family residential use shall conform to the yard, height,
area and density requirements set forth in Section 615 FOR THE R-3
DISTRICT except as otherwise provided herein:

***

d. Neither the Zoning Administrator nor the Board of Adjustment shall
have jurisdiction to vary the provisions of Section 624.E.1.OFF-SITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF SECTION 608.J,
INCLUDING USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

e. Any residential use within the downtown redevelopment area, as
defined in City Council Resolution No. 15143 shall conform to the
yard, height, area, and density requirements set forth in Section 618.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

2. Any single-family residential use shall conform to the following requirements:

a. Such development shall be permitted only if the property is
designated as residential on the General Plan Map. If this standard is
satisfied, the remainder of this section shall apply.

b. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Zoning Administrator a
declaration of the development option (standard subdivision, average
lot subdivision, conventional, or planned residential development) and
density proposed for the residential use.

c. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the residential zoning
district to which the proposed single-family development is
equivalent, the use shall satisfy the development standards contained
in Sections 609 through 613 for the development option and density
of the equivalent zoning district.

d. Upon completion of development of a single-family residential use in
accordance with this section, the Planning Commission shall initiate
an application for rezoning the site to the residential zoning district
appropriate for the site.

2. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE DEVELOPED
ONLY AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I. R-3
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS SHALL
APPLY WHEN NOT IDENTIFIED OR MODIFIED BY SECTION 608.I.

***

Section 632. Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High
Density District) to strike everything, and replace with the following text:

SECTION 632. MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ESTABLISH
ZONING REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 9-
462.13, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS FOLLOWS:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

1. ENTITLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MIDDLE HOUSING OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO HAVE UP TO FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS PER
LOT.

2. PROVIDE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR MIDDLE
HOUSING.

B. APPLICABILITY.

1. THE MH OVERLAY MAY BE COMBINED WITH ANY ZONING DISTRICT
WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 632.C.

2. IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH OVERLAY CONFLICT WITH OTHER
ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, THE MH
OVERLAY PROVISIONS SHALL PREVAIL, UNLESS OTHERWISE
STATED IN THIS SECTION.

C. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL BE
APPLIED TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. A PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN REZONED WITH THE MH OVERLAY
DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506; OR

2. LOTS IN A SUBDIVISION HAVING A PLAT RECORDED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2026, WHICH MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL
CRITERIA:

a. THE SUBDIVISION IS CONTIGUOUS AND A MINIMUM 10 GROSS
ACRES IN SIZE.

b. THE SUBDIVISION HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF A PRIOR
SUBDIVISION WHICH HAS APPLIED THE MIDDLE HOUSING
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9-462.13, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES.

c. THE SUBDIVISION HAS BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-
1, C-2, OR C-3.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


d. FOR C-1, C-2, AND C-3 PROPERTIES ONLY: THE SUBDIVISION
IS PLATTED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISION AS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.I.

e. THE NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED FOR APPLICATION OF THE
MH OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. FOR
SUBDIVISIONS OF FEWER THAN FIVE LOTS, ONE LOT SHALL
BE PERMITTED TO HAVE THE MH OVERLAY.

f. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF: PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT; PHOENIX DEER VALLEY AIRPORT; AND
SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT; EACH OF WHICH IS A FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION COMMERCIALLY LICENSED
AIRPORT OR A GENERAL AVIATION OR PUBLIC AIRPORT AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8486, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.

g. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY IN THE
VICINITY OF A MILITARY AIRPORT OR ANCILLARY MILITARY
FACILITY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 28-8461, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES.

h. THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT LOCATED ON TRIBAL LAND.

I. THE SUBDIVISION OWNER HAS REQUESTED THE CITY TO
ASSIGN THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION
THROUGH THE OPT-IN PROCEDURES PROVIDED IN THIS
SECTION.

D. OPT-IN PROCEDURE. PRIOR TO UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT, SUBDIVISIONS ELIGIBLE PER SECTION 632.C.2 MUST
REQUEST THAT THE CITY APPLY THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE LOTS
ON WHICH MIDDLE HOUSING SHALL BE PERMITTED, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE SUBDIVISION OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC
AN OPT-IN FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


2. CONCURRENT WITH THE OPT-IN FORM, THE SUBDIVISION OWNER
SHALL SUBMIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOTS ON WHICH THE
MH OVERLAY DISTRICT SHALL BE APPLIED.

3. CITY STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE OPT-IN FORM AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. WHEN THE REQUEST IS CONFIRMED TO BE
ELIGIBLE, STAFF SHALL PROCESS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO APPLY THE MH
OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE ELIGIBLE SUBDIVISION LOTS.

4. ONCE THE ZONING MAP CHANGE IS COMPLETED, THE LOTS SHALL
BE OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT UNTIL SUCH
TIME THAT THEY MAY BE REZONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
506.

E. MIDDLE HOUSING (MH) DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING
MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLY ONLY WHEN THE MH
DISTRICT IS COMBINED WITH THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, RE-35, R1-18, R1-10,
R1-8, R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, OR C-3 ZONING
DISTRICTS. FOR ALL OTHER PROPERTIES, THE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE BASE DISTRICT APPLY.

1. PERMITTED USES.

a. ALL USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONING
DISTRICTS, PLUS

b. MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

2. DENSITY. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS
(PDU) PROVIDED ON A LOT ASSIGNED THE MH OVERLAY DISTRICT
SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING,
OR FOUR PDUS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

a. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SUBDIVIDED LOTS PER ACRE IS
THE SAME AS ALLOWED BY THE BASE ZONING AND IS NOT
MODIFIED BY THIS SECTION.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

b. FOR THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION,
DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 608.H.1.

3. SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM
HEIGHT(S) SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
UNIT ON THE SAME PROPERTY, INCLUDING THOSE FOR PERMITTED
PROJECTIONS.

4. LOT COVERAGE. LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR THE
BASE DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

a. LOTS WITH BASE ZONING OF RE-43, RE-35, RE-24, OR R1-14.
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE
INCREASED TO 50% WHEN ALL STRUCTURES ON THE LOT ARE
ONE-STORY AND A MAXIMUM 20 FEET IN HEIGHT.

5. PARKING AND MANEUVERING.

a. ON LOTS HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY DWELLING
UNIT, A MINIMUM OF TWO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE
PROVIDED ONSITE.

b. ON LOTS HAVING TWO OR MORE PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS,
A MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED
ONSITE PER PDU.

c. MANEUVERING WITHIN A PUBLIC ALLEY SHALL BE ALLOWED
WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: (T)

(1) THE ALLEY IS A MINIMUM 16 FEET WIDE FOR THE
LENGTH OF THE BLOCK;

(2) THE ALLEY IS PAVED TO THE TWO NEAREST EXISTING
CROSS STREETS, TO THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY
THE CITY FOR A LOCAL STREET; AND




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(3) A MINIMUM OF 24 FEET MANEUVERING AREA IS
PROVIDED THAT IS A COMBINATION OF THE ALLEY
PAVING AND ONSITE PAVING, OR AS OTHERWISE
APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL APPEAL.

6. DESIGN REVIEW.

a. HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP). DESIGN REVIEW FOR HP-
ZONED OR HP-DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SHALL BE AS
REQUIRED PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8, WITH NO
MODIFICATIONS BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

b. ALL LOTS NOT ZONED HP OR DESIGNATED HP, REGARDLESS
OF LOT WIDTH, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 507 TAB A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW.

***

Section 701. Bulk Regulations
Amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to read as follows:

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.

a. STANDARD OPTION. The following provisions apply to development
in Sections 604 through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision
option of Sections 609 through 618 IN THE RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
AND R-4A DISTRICTS, AND IN THE RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8,
R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN
DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD
DEVELOPMENT OPTION:

(1) Open projections.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(a) In any district, an awning, open porch, open carport, or
open balcony may project into any required front yard
not more than five feet.
FRONT YARD. AN ATTACHED CARPORT, AWNING,
PORCH/FRONT ENTRY, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP
TO FIVE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.

(b) An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony
may project into any side yard other than the side yard
on the street side of a corner lot, if it does not come
nearest to the side lot line than three feet.
SIDE YARDS. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO ANY INTERIOR (NOT STREET) SIDE
YARD, PROVIDED THAT IT IS NO CLOSER THAN
THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

(i) For any lot wherein a ten-foot or greater side
yard is required, no such projection shall be
within an area ten feet wide and ten feet high,
measured from finished grade, lying within that
side yard.

(ii) No more than one such clear area, as stipulated
in i. above, need be maintained on a lot.

(c) An attached open porch, open carport, or open balcony
may project into a rear yard, provided it does not come
nearer to a common rear lot line than three feet. Where
a rear alley exists this projection may extend to the rear
lot line or to within eight or ten feet of what would be the
centerline of a full sixteen- or twenty-foot-wide alley
where only a one-half or partial alley exists.
REAR YARD. AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH,
PERGOLA, TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY
PROJECT INTO THE REAR YARD, PROVIDED THAT
IT IS NO CLOSER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


(i) WHERE A FULLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS,
THIS PROJECTION MAY EXTEND TO THE
PROPERTY LINE; OR WHERE ONLY A
PARTIALLY-DEDICATED ALLEY EXISTS, TO
WITHIN EIGHT OR TEN FEET OF WHAT
WOULD BE THE CENTERLINE OF A FULL 16-
OR 20-FOOT-WIDE ALLEY.

(d) Open fire balconies, and OPEN fire escape stairs
PROVIDED FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY may
project not more than five feet over INTO any required
yard provided they come no closer than two feet from a
property line.

(e) Awnings, cornices, CANTILEVERED roof overhangs,
and eaves may project more than three feet over INTO
any required yard providing they come no closer than
two feet from a property line.

(f) Sills, leaders, belt courses, and similar ornamental
features may project not more than six inches over
INTO any required yard.

(g) An entrance awning may project into any required yard
in an R-5 or less restricted district.

(2) Closed Projections.

(a) A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule, ten feet or
less in width, may project not more than three feet into
any REQUIRED front or rear yard.

(b) A chimney may project not more than three feet into any
required yard, if it THE CHIMNEY is not more than six
feet long measured in a direction parallel to the nearest
property line AND so long as it is not closer than two
feet from a property line.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(c) The main building in a residence district may project five
feet into the required front yard for no more than one-
half of the maximum width of the structure.

(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear or side yard, subject
to the following:

(i) The projection is no closer to a side property line
than five feet;

(ii) The projection is no closer to a rear property line
than three feet; and

(iii) The projection does not exceed 15 feet in height,
unless greater height is permitted by obtaining a
use permit per Section 307.

b. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND PLANNED
AREA DEVELOPMENTS. The following provisionS applies APPLY
to development in the average lot and RE-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8,
R1-6, R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, AND R-5 DISTRICTS WHEN
DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE Planned Residential
Development options of Sections 609 through 618, AND
SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED AS PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENTS PER SECTION 635:

(1) There shall be no projections into the required front or rear
yard or required perimeter setbacks except:

(a) A roof overhang may project not more than three feet
into either of these yard AREAS; and




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(b) An attached awning, open porch, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY or other similar shade
structure may project not more than ten feet into the
required rear yard PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACK
provided that the structure shall neither cover more than
two hundred 200 square feet nor come closer than three
feet to a side or rear property line.

(c) A CLOSED PROJECTION (WHICH MAY INCLUDE AN
ATTACHED ADU) MAY PROJECT INTO THE
REQUIRED PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(I) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

(II) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

(III) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.

(2) A roof overhang may project no more than three feet into a
required street side yard setback.

c. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) SUBDIVISIONS. The following
provisions apply to single-family attached residential development:
SFI SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 608.I:

(1) Open Projections.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(a) An awning, open porch, or open balcony may project
into any required setback not more than five feet.
AN ATTACHED AWNING, PORCH, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, OR BALCONY MAY PROJECT UP
TO FIVE FEET INTO ANY REQUIRED YARD THAT IS
NOT A REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

(b) Where an FULLY-DEDICATED alley exists, an
ATTACHED awning, open porch, PERGOLA,
TRELLIS/ARBOR, or open balcony may extend to the
property line.

(2) Closed Projections. A bay window, oriel, entrance, or vestibule,
ten feet in width or less, may project not more than three feet
into any required building setback YARD THAT IS NOT A
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

***

Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) to read as follows:

***

B. Site and Parking Space Design Standards.

***

2. Space and aisle dimensions. Dimensions for maneuvering aisles and for
different types of parking spaces shall be as follows:

***

b. Surface parking:

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(5) The combined depth of the parking space and the aisle width
shall equal sixty-two (62) feet for a double loaded aisle and
forty-three (43) feet for a single loaded aisle.
FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HAVING NO MORE THAN
FOUR PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS, THE MINIMUM DRIVE
AISLE WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED TO 10 FEET FOR TWO-
WAY TRAFFIC WHERE IT DOES NOT ALSO FUNCTION AS
REQUIRED MANEUVERING FOR AN ADJACENT PARKING
SPACE, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

***

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements

*** ***

1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
A minimum of 50% Of the required parking
Dwelling Unit, Multi-family spaces, A MINIMUM OF 0.25 SPACES PER
DWELLING UNIT must be provided as
unreserved spaces WHEN THE LOT HAS FIVE
OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

Per Section 608.F.6, if developing under the
single-family infill development option per
Sections 614 through 618.
2 spaces per PRIMARY DWELLING unit if not
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Attached developing under the SFI option. The required
spaces for each dwelling unit must be provided on
the same lot. An additional 0.25 unreserved
spaceS per dwelling unit must be provided
elsewhere within the development for visitor
parking.

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Detached 2 spaces per 1 PRIMARY dwelling unit




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Type of Land Use Parking Requirements

*** ***



***

F. Special Parking Standards.

1. Residential DISTRICTS lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family residential uses may
SHALL not be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single-family residential uses
may be located in the required front yard. However, all parking and
maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall not exceed 50
percent of the area of the required front yard, except that a driveway
shall not be required to be less than 18 feet in width unless otherwise
stipulated by Historic Preservation.
NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD
SHALL BE USED FOR DRIVEWAYS, MANEUVERING AREAS, AND
NON-REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. HP-ZONED LOTS MAY BE
STIPULATED TO MAXIMUM PAVING THAT IS LESS THAN 50
PERCENT AS A PART OF THE HP APPROVAL PROCESS SET
FORTH IN CHAPTER 8.

c. Buses shall not be parked in the front yard of any residential district.
A bus is any commercially licensed motor vehicle designed for
carrying more than fifteen (15) 15 passengers and used for the
transportation of persons as well as any motor vehicle, other than a
taxicab, designed for the transportation of persons for compensation.

d. Mobile homes shall not be parked in any residential district except as
provided in Section 647.A.2.1 608.J.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Section 703. Landscaping, Fences, and Walls
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences, and Walls) to read as follows:

***

B. Landscaping and Open Areas SPACE in Multiple-Family Development.

1. Purpose. Multiple-family dwellings UNITS can play a desired role by
providing desired forms of housing in appropriately zoned locations.
However, because the density of dwellings is greater than alternate forms of
housing, there is a relatively greater need to ensure an appropriate
residential setting, including both landscape amenities and adequate
outdoor open areas. Although it is recognized that many multiple-family
projects will wish to provide these in greater amounts, this section
establishes minimum standards for these features. These standards also
recognize both limitations in water availability as well as legitimate needs to
use landscaping for shade, cooling, and visual relief. To these purposes,
these standards distinguish between landscaped areas oriented to public
street and the exterior of projects from that more internally oriented and for
the use of residents. They provide for landscaping at the perimeter and in
front yards to include waterless features and drought resistant plant
materials. Higher water use landscaping is to be restricted to interior areas
devoted to resident use.

2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time
of initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with five or more dwelling units.
PROPERTIES WITH FOUR OR FEWER DWELLING UNITS SHOULD
REFER TO SECTION 507 TAB A, II.C.9, RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN
REVIEW.

***

Section 710. Hillside Development
Amend Chapter 7, Section 710 (Hillside Development) to read as follows:

***

B. Applicability.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


***

2. Development of land in any zoning district within a hillside development area
shall also be regulated by the provisions of THIS section, 32-32 of the
Phoenix City Code, whether subdivided or not, and shall be subject to the
following special conditions:

a. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHALL BE APPLIED IN
PLACE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE BASE
ZONING DISTRICT OF A PROPERTY AS SET FORTH IN THIS
SECTION, AND SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED BY A ZONING
OVERLAY.

b. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO REGULATED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32-32 OF THE PHOENIX CITY CODE,
WHETHER SUBDIVIDED OR NOT.

***

C. Standards.

***

2. Hillside development area standards. Special yard, height, area, and
coverage requirements for developments in the hillside areas in any zoning
district shall be as follows:

Table 1




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


18,000 square As required by as required by As required by
feet* zoning district zoning district zoning district

*Lot areas of
more than
eighteen
thousand
(18,000) square
feet may be
required in order
to provide a
suitable building
MINIMUM LOT
site meeting the
AREA grading
standards of
Section 32-32 of
the Phoenix City
Code.

In no case shall
residential lots
contain an area
less than the
minimum area
required by the
zoning district in




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


which such lots
are located.


MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS


120* As required by As required by As required by
zoning district zoning district zoning district
120'*
• WIDTH
*Unless in
• DEPTH conformance with
Section 32-32(M)
of the City Code


REQUIRED SETBACKS


As required by As required by Minimum 30'* As required by
• FRONT YARD zoning district zoning district zoning district or
minimum 30'*


As required by As required by Minimum 30'* Minimum 30'*
• REAR YARD
zoning district zoning district


• SIDE YARDS As required by As required by Minimum Minimum 15'*,
zoning district or zoning district or 15'**Building whichever is




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


ten (10) feet, ten (10) feet, heights greater greater*Building
whichever is whichever is than fifteen (15) heights greater
greater greater feet: required than fifteen (15)
yard plus one (1) feet: required
additional foot for yard plus one (1)
each foot of additional foot for
building height each foot of
exceeding 15' building height
measured from exceeding 15'
exterior measured from
boundaries exterior
boundaries


The main building The main The main The main building
and all accessory building and all building and all and all accessory
buildings shall accessory accessory buildings shall not
not occupy more buildings shall buildings shall occupy more than
than twenty-five not occupy more not occupy more twenty-five
MAXIMUM
percent (25%) of than twenty-five than twenty-five percent (25%) of
COVERAGE
the hillside percent (25%) of percent (25%) of the hillside
UNDER ROOF
portion of the lot the hillside the hillside portion of the lot
or parcel portion of the lot portion of the lot or parcel or as
or parcel or parcel required by
zoning district,
whichever is less




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS


b. Single-family
a. Single-family Residential
Residential (Planned
d. Any Non-
DEVELOPMENT (Conventional, Residential c. Multi-Family
Residential
OPTION Standard and Development Residential
Zoning District
Average Lot Option, and
Options) Planned Area
Development)


No building shall No building shall No building shall No building shall
exceed a height exceed a height exceed a height exceed a height
of two (2) stories, of two (2) stories, of two (2) stories, of two (2) stories,
not to exceed not to exceed not to exceed not to exceed
MAXIMUM
thirty (30) feet thirty (30) feet thirty (30) feet thirty (30) feet
BUILDING
above the natural above the natural above the natural above the natural
HEIGHT
grade of the lot or grade of the lot or grade of the lot grade of the lot or
parcel at any parcel at any or parcel at any parcel at any
section through section through section through section through
the structure the structure the structure the structure




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD: 18,000
SQUARE FEET, OR
AS REQUIRED BY
THE ZONING
NET LOT AREA DISTRICT, SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(1)
(MINIMUM) WHICHEVER IS ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
GREATER
PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT

STANDARD: 120
LOT WIDTH (1) FEET SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(2)
(MINIMUM) PRD: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
ZONING DISTRICT

STANDARD: 120
LOT DEPTH (1) FEET SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(3)
(MINIMUM) PRD: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
ZONING DISTRICT

DEVELOPMENT
(4) DENSITY AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1
(MAXIMUM)

SUBDIVIDED
(5) LOTS AS CALCULATED PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 710.C.1
(MAXIMUM)

30 FEET, OR AS
FRONT YARD REQUIRED BY BASE
SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(6) SETBACK ZONING DISTRICT,
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM) WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

30 FEET, OR AS
REAR YARD REQUIRED BY BASE
SAME AS BASE SAME AS BASE
(7) SETBACK ZONING DISTRICT,
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM) WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.

STANDARD: 10 FEET STANDARD: 10 FEET
OR AS REQUIRED BY OR AS REQUIRED BY
BASE ZONING BASE ZONING 15 FEET, OR AS
SIDE YARD DISTRICT, DISTRICT, REQUIRED BY BASE
(8) SETBACK WHICHEVER IS WHICHEVER IS ZONING DISTRICT,
(MINIMUM) GREATER. GREATER. WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.
PRD: SAME AS BASE PRD: SAME AS BASE
ZONING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT

PER SECTION PER SECTION
(9) PROJECTIONS NOT PERMITTED
701.A.3 701.A.3

PERIMETER
(10) SETBACKS SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

15 FEET WHEN WITHIN 10 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED
DISTRICT BOUNDARY, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE
BUILDING
FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
(11) HEIGHT
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 2 STORIES AND 30 FEET, AS
(MAXIMUM)
MEASURED FROM THE NATURAL GRADE OF THE PROPERTY AT ANY
SECTION THROUGH THE STRUCTURE.

FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS EQUAL
TO OR GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT: 25 PERCENT, OR AS
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED BY THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
(12)
(MAXIMUM)
FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SLOPE IS LESS
THAN 10 PERCENT: SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

TABLE 710.C.2
HILLSIDE AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

(A) (B)
(C)
CATEGORY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

COMMON OPEN
(13) SPACE SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
(MINIMUM)

STREET
FRONTAGE
(14) SAME AS BASE ZONING DISTRICT
REQUIREMENT
(2)



HILLSIDE: SECTION
32-32, CITY CODE.
HILLSIDE: SECTION HILLSIDE: SECTION
OTHER 32-32, CITY CODE. DESIGN REVIEW: 32-32, CITY CODE.
(15) APPLICABLE SECTION 507 TAB A.
REGULATIONS: DESIGN REVIEW: DESIGN REVIEW:
SECTION 507 TAB A. MULTI-FAMILY: SECTION 507 TAB A.
SECTION 703.B



(1) MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED WHEN APPROVED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION 32-32.C.3.M,
REGARDING PANHANDLE, DOUBLE FRONTAGE, AND OTHER UNORTHODOX LOTS.

(2) STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED WHEN
APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTION 32-
32.C.3.N, REGARDING HILLSIDE STREET AND PAVING STANDARDS.

***

Section 1203. Land Use Matrix (Downtown Code)
Amend Section 1203. Land Use Matrix (Downtown Code) to read as follows:

***

Section 1203. Land Use Matrix

***



Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


C. Land Use Matrix.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS




BioMed Van Buren Warehouse
ACTIVE USE Business Core Central Park East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor



RESIDENTIAL USES
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling Unit, Single- np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Family, Detached
(Including Duplex and
Triplex Uses)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025




***

D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with
conditions (pc) OR USE PERMIT (up) as indicated with a number that corresponds
with the Land Use Matrix in Section 1203.C:

***
27. Single-Family Infill (SFI) subdivision, per Sections 608.F.6 and 614, Table
614.B SECTION 608.I, except as modified below:

***

e. Frontage requirements: as per the applicable character area; or if lots
front on a something other than a frontage zone, per the regulations
of Sections 608.F.6 and 614, Table B, Column D SECTION 608.I.

***

g. Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home
occupations per Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter
street (not an alley) may have additional uses as permitted per the
applicable character area. Single-family detached units are permitted
for no more than 20 percent of the units in an SFI development to
allow for variety and efficiency of design.

***

Section 1205. Frontage Elements (Downtown Code)
Amend Section 1205. Frontage Elements (Downtown Code) to read as follows:

***

A. Active Front Yard (AFY). An active front yard is a frontage element intended for use
on blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex
style residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses
which are nonresidential, or on residential lots with more than two FOUR
PRIMARY dwelling units (not including ADUs). (R*)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025


1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and
improvements in the frontage zone shall be constructed as approved by
Historic Preservation.

2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be
installed in conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit
Design Standards) II.C.9 (RESIDENTIAL LOT DESIGN REVIEW). If any of
the requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 conflict with provisions
of the Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 II.C.9 requirements shall
prevail.

***

Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards (WU Code)
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1303 (Transect Lot Standards) to read as follows:

***

Section 1303. Transect Lot Standards

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter,
including frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting
public streets, private accessways, and private driveways, with the following
caveats:

a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family Infill
development option SUBDIVISION standards per Section 608.F.6
and Table 614.B, column D (except for the density, which is not
restricted) 608.I if it meets all three of the following conditions:

(1) The development SUBDIVISION consists solely of single-
family dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the
single-family infill development option or the infill development
district as depicted on the map provided in Section 608.F.6;
and
THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL
PLAN OR IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
“APPLICABLE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT” SHOWN IN FIGURE 608.I.1 AND HAS
OBTAINED USE PERMIT APPROVAL; AND

(3) The development SUBDIVISION is located in any transect
other than T3.

b. All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance (Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the
Subdivision Committee to further the goals of the Walkable Urban
Code.

2. All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the
same setback and stepback standards as the single-family infill
development option (Table 614.B, column D); with additional requirements
as follows: BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STEPBACK AND
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN
FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT
MAY BE INCREASED ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
HEIGHT. THIS stepback provision shall not exceedREQUIRE
GREATER THAN A maximum 75-foot setback from rear and side
property lines for building height before THE maximum height IS
allowed.

***


Section 1306. Land Use Matrix
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1306 (Land Use Matrix) to read as follows:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix

***

B. Use Regulations.

***

Table 1306.1 Land Use Matrix




CATEGORY: T3 T4 T5:2 T5:3 T5:5 T5:6 T5:7 T6:7 T6:22
RESIDENTIAL USES T6:15 T6:
HWR

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Detached P P NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
(Including Duplex and Triplex Uses)

Dwelling Unit, Single-Family Attached P P P P P P P P P

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL NP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
SUBDIVISION

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***


***

C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.

***

4. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL SUBDIVISION, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION
1303.A.1.a.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-1-25-Y
August 29, 2025

Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking and loading standards) to read as
follows:

***

Section 1307. Parking and loading standards.

***

B. Required Vehicular Parking.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking


T5 T5

USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6 MEASURE
Stories Stories

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Per Section 608.F.6 608.I, if developing under the
Residential, Single-Family
Per unit provisions of Section 1303.A.1.a; otherwise per Section
Attached
702.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***


***




Exhibit B: Sketch Map


w
v

Thomas Rd

G
ra
nd Transit Overlay
Av District (TOD-1)
e Coronado
Neighborhood
SPD

Mcdowell Rd
Story Roosevelt
§
¨
¦
10 Neighborhood Neighborhood
SPD SPD
Arts Culture and
Small Business
v
w

Overlay
w
v


Transit Transit Overlay
Van Buren St Overlay
Capitol District
District (TOD-1) (TOD-2)
Mall Overlay
Jefferson St District



§
¨
¦
Central City
South Interim
Overlay District
East Buckeye
Road Overlay
District
Buckeye Rd



27th Ave 23rd Ave 19th Ave 7th Ave Central Ave 16th St 24th St
Airport
7th St Noise Impact
Zone Overlay

Rio Salado
Interim Overlay University Dr
Lower Buckeye Rd
District




¯ Miles
Z-3-25-4-7-8 GRAND CANAL
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

THOMAS RD

0 0.35 0.7 1.4 MC DOWELL RD ENCANTO
I-10 CENTRAL CITY

CENTRAL CITY / ENCANTO VILLAGE VAN BUREN ST
BUCKEYE RD
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4, 7, 8
I-17
LOWER BUCKEYE RD

40TH ST
7TH AVE
16TH ST 24TH ST
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH ST


REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
FROM: Various (4467.45 ac.)
DATE:
8/13/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-3-25-4-7-8 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.

Various with Middle Housing Overlay District
AERIAL PHOTO & TO:
ZONING MAP

4467.45 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 7-26 - QS 7-28 QS 12-24 - QS 12-31 E-7, E-8, F-7, F-8,
QS 8-24 - QS 8-27 QS 13-24 - QS 13-31
( 4467.45 ac.)
QS 9-24 - QS 9-27
QS 10-24 - QS 10-31
QS 11-24 - QS 11-31
QS 14-24 - QS 14-30
QS 15-25 - QS 15-29 F-9, G-7, G-8, G-9
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 1182
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-3-25-4-7-8.aprx
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting September 29, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle
Housing Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located
generally within one mile of the Downtown Code
boundary


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and
were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state
legislation, details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the
Middle Housing Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a
summary of the timeline for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Blackman asked for clarification about the applicability area.
Mr. Grande provided additional information about the mechanism for applying the
overlay to new subdivisions of 10 acres or more.

Committee Member Strem asked about how compatibility of new buildings is
determined. Mr. Grande stated that existing zoning and design review requirements
would still be in place.

Committee Member Fisher noted an issue about taxation and code enforcement for
these lots since the new units will not be subdivided for ownership.

Chair Gasparro stated there are issues with infrastructure and parking. Mr. Grande
noted that the City doesn’t have the ability to require more parking than one parking
space per unit under this code.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1183
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary – September 29, 2025
Z-3-25-4-7-8


Committee Member Broberg asked if the City has an analysis of the potential
universe of homes that could take advantage of this ordinance and if there is an
understanding of the neighborhoods that will be impacted with potential parking
issues. Mr. Grande noted that staff have been discussing with neighborhoods around
downtown that have been concerned about potential impacts.

Committee Member Strem asked if the State provided a rationale for passing this
legislation. Chair Gasparro stated that many cities and states are passing similar
laws to this to help with housing affordability.

Chair Gasparro asked for clarification on the penalty if a city does not comply with
this law. Mr. Grande replied that the penalty could be that the City would lose control
over regulation for middle housing completely.

Committee Member Broberg asked for clarification on the lot coverage requirement.
Mr. Grande replied that the lot coverage requirements for single-family lots would not
be changed by this text.

Committee Member Slobodzian asked about discussions with the Water Services
Department about water supply. Mr. Grande stated that new water connections are
reviewed by the Water Services Department and developments are required to have
a water supply before they can be built, adding that sewer capacity is required in the
same way.

Committee Member Fisher asked if there was any consideration about other issues
such as deeds and taxes that could delay construction. Mr. Grande noted that the
legislation requires the City to allow middle housing through zoning and development
codes, which is what this proposal does.

Chair Gasparro asked about public comments that have been given in the meetings
up to this point. Mr. Grande noted that the largest concern has been the impacts to
historic neighborhoods near downtown.

Committee Member Broberg asked if this legislation was crafted based on a bill in
another state. Mr. Grande stated that he didn’t know. Chair Gasparro speculated
that this legislation was copied and pasted from another state.

Committee Member Fisher discussed the need for a mechanism to enforce changes
to the tax requirements for new middle housing developments. Committee Member
Broberg added that this creates an incentive to not disclose additional units on a lot
to avoid tax issues.

Committee Member Fisher asked if HOAs would have the ability to restrict middle
housing. Mr. Grande stated that the law does not impact HOA requirements.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1184
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary – September 29, 2025
Z-3-25-4-7-8


Chair Gasparro commented about issues with school capacity that haven’t been
considered in creating this legislation.

Committee Member Jain stated that this is not a good response to the legislation
and that the City could have tried to realize the goal of the legislation and revised the
zoning regulations to do more than the minimum to incentivize additional housing. Mr.
Grande reviewed some of the City’s housing-related policies, noting that this
ordinance was focused on responding specifically to the legislation.

Committee Member Strem stated that this will not create affordable housing.

Chair Gasparro suggested that incentivizing housing could be done through
demolition credits and fee waivers in the area where middle housing is desired by
policymakers.

Vice Chair Mager asked if this would likely result in demolition of buildings to
construct middle housing developments. Mr. Grande stated that it is a question of
economic feasibility for each lot, highlighting that the law would allow redevelopment
or conversion of existing homes.

Committee Member Fisher stated that the legislation is not well written.

Committee Member Broberg highlighted that the City could provide a better
response to what they are doing to address the housing shortage in Phoenix.

Committee Member Fisher stated that this overlay should be limited to the one-mile
radius that’s required, and it would be an issue if it were expanded.

Chair Gasparro asked if the Committee’s comments will be conveyed to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Grande stated that the comments drafted as minutes will be
provided to the Planning Commission before the meeting on this item.

Committee Member Jain asked for clarification about how the overlay will apply to
new developments of 10 acres or more. Mr. Grande described the mechanism.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1185
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
Date of VPC Meeting September 30, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary

VPC DISCUSSION

Committee Member Crews arrived during this item, bringing quorum to 11 members.

Item Nos. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case and stated the items would be heard concurrently. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that there had been previous public presentations on this text
amendment and information was available online. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the
background regarding House Bill 2721, details of the proposed zoning text to revise
regulations and create the Middle Housing Overlay District. Mr. Roanhorse provided
examples of Middle Housing and the applicability for residential development. Mr.
Roanhorse presented the applicability to new subdivisions, limitations and the
implications for Historic Preservation. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the boundary of the
proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Krietor asked for clarification on the northern boundary of the
Central Business District. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the northern boundary is
McDowell Road. Committee Member Krietor stated that the area shown does not
appear to include the Alhambra Village, but Middle Housing would be important for the
area and the requirement for 20 percent in new subdivisions may not be applicable to
Alhambra, as there are few, if any, sites available for new subdivision development.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 30, 2025


Chair Sanchez asked if an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) would allow for two-story
construction on a lot. Mr. Roanhorse responded that Middle Housing allows duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes would allow up to two stories. Committee Member
Keyser commented that ADUs have typically been limited to one story, and the text
amendment appears to be a change from past regulations, noting that he had seen two-
story accessory structures previously cited for noncompliance.

Committee Member Ender asked whether the middle housing requirements would
impact existing CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions). Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the state legislation does not override private CC&Rs, which are
enforced separately from city zoning regulations. Committee Member Ender asked
about the availability of infrastructure and services to support Middle Housing
development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that during the plan review process, City staff
evaluate the availability of infrastructure and identify any necessary adjustments, and
this information is provided to the applicant to ensure that new development can be
supported appropriately.

Committee Member Ender asked how parking would be accommodated for middle
housing, particularly in neighborhoods where street parking is already common. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that parking can be provided on the lot being developed and
noted that under the new text amendment, the city cannot require more than one off-
street parking space per dwelling unit, in alignment with the state’s middle housing
legislation.

Committee Member Harris asked if there will be design criteria in place to ensure that
middle housing developments in existing neighborhoods maintain the appearance of
single-family homes to maintain the architectural character of the area. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that all new developments must comply with the design requirements
outlined in the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member DeGraffenried asked if middle housing could be designed to
resemble single-family homes. Mr. Roanhorse responded that while the developments
must follow established design guidelines, the intent is to ensure compatibility with
surrounding structures.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the applicability of historic preservation which
raised a question on designated historic buildings and if existing parking would remain
in place if the property were redeveloped. Mr. Roanhorse responded that if an
entitlement for parking has already been granted in association with a site, it would
remain valid unless the entitlement is formally changed.

Committee Member Shore asked about the potential impact of Middle Housing on
historic properties and if the new regulations could lead to increased demolitions and
asked if there would be changes to front yards and lot configurations. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that historic properties are not exempt from the middle housing requirements

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1187
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 30, 2025


and the existing review procedures and demolition restrictions for historic properties
would remain unchanged.

Committee Member Crews commented that various duplex and triplex properties
blend into existing neighborhoods and noted a specific example near 3rd Avenue and
Thomas Road, where a house with multiple units had parking integrated into the
existing design. Committee Member Crews stated that the legislative intent behind the
Middle Housing requirements was to increase housing options, not to override local
design authority. Mr. Roanhorse noted that the text amendment did not include any
provisions that would preempt the City’s authority over design standards, and this
remains a city responsibility, allowing communities to maintain architectural consistency
and neighborhood character.

Committee Member Velasco asked if the intent of the legislation was to increase
housing supply which does not necessarily guarantee affordability. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the current housing shortage has driven a surge in residential
development and that Middle Housing is one strategy to diversify the housing stock and
provide a broader range of options to meet varying needs and conditions.

Committee Member Crews stated that affordable housing remains a significant
challenge in the community and there needs to be a broad discussion on the topic to
explore several potential solutions. Committee Member Crews stated no definitive
conclusions were reached during legislative discussions. Committee Member Crews
expressed the importance of collaboration among various levels of government and
community organizations in addressing housing affordability. Committee Member Crews
stated the Village Planning Committee has a role in facilitating these discussions and
contributing to potential solutions. Committee Member Crews expressed optimism that
the introduction of Middle Housing could improve both pricing and availability, potentially
to ease the affordability crisis. Committee Member Crews stated there is concern about
the trend of constructing luxury-style short-term rentals, such as Airbnb properties,
which may undermine affordability goals and stressed the need for closer monitoring of
such developments. Committee Member Crews stated that affordability does not equate
to availability, especially as more people continue to move to Phoenix and while current
pricing may allow some individuals to purchase homes, addressing the broader issue of
affordability will require significant and sustained involvement from multiple
stakeholders.

Committee Member Vallo asked about density bonuses for low-income housing. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that there are incentives in place for development and noted that
there are challenges due to the prevalence of market-rate developments, which often
outpace affordable housing projects. Mr. Roanhorse said there are active projects
currently underway that do include affordable housing components and progress is
being made but will take time before these units become readily available to the
community.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1188
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 30, 2025


Committee Member Krietor commented that the Alhambra Village has demonstrated
responsiveness in adapting to housing needs, particularly through its integration with
light rail and collaboration with organizations such as UMOM and Catholic Charities and
these efforts have helped provide housing options and opportunities for residents and
stated that the Village Planning Committee has consistently supported initiatives that
promote affordable housing.

Committee Member Shore asked how TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) supports
residential growth. Mr. Roanhorse responded that TOD is designed to facilitate active
transportation by improving accessibility between residential areas and businesses
along the light rail corridor which are specifically planned to maximize access and
ridership while promoting a variety of residential options.

Committee Member Keyser asked if the existing overlay districts would be extended
and commented that potential adverse impacts of urban sprawl may result. Committee
Member Keyser stated that sprawl affects transportation systems, energy consumption,
and design efficiency which are issues that all planning committees should consider as
development continues. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the city has implemented a
shade policy, incorporated water conservation measures, and improved construction
design standards, all of which contribute to more sustainable development practices.
Committee Member Keyser commented that while improved irrigation systems are
beneficial, they have limitations and noted the importance of monitoring and adjusting
policies as new technologies emerge to ensure long-term effectiveness and
sustainability.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1189
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary

VPC DISCUSSION:

Vice Chair Paceley left the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 16 members.

Item Nos. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state legislation,
details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the Middle Housing
Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline
for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Schmieder asked about the scenario of an existing fourplex and if
the owner would be required to keep it. Mr. Grande replied that the zoning would still
allow single-family homes and would not require a fourplex to be constructed or
retained.

Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen asked for clarification regarding this proposal
and the ADU text amendment. Mr. Grande replied that the ADU provision is separate
and would still be allowed on lots with a single-family home.

Committee Member Guevar asked if the City had looked into potential issues with
lenders who could see these properties as multifamily after this overlay is approved. Mr.
Grande replied that he hadn’t heard of that concern, noting that the zoning districts
would retain the label of Single-Family Residence District.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary – September 9, 2025
Z-3-25-4-7-8


Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification that this would apply on any
individual lot within 1 mile of downtown. Mr. Grande replied that it would. Mr. Whitesell
stated a desire to communicate to the City that they should advocate to the State
Legislature for creating an exemption for historic properties. Chair Fischbach stated
that since this is information only, the Committee should not take a formal vote on any
motion, encouraging Committee Members to contact their representatives at the City
level to express their concerns.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1191
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 16, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard together.

Committee Member Leon Thomas left during this item bring the quorum to 8 members
present.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state legislation,
details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the Middle Housing
Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a summary of the timeline
for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Members asked questions regarding various aspects of the Proposed Text
Amendment and Middle Housing Overlay District including clarification regarding the
boundary of the Middle Housing Overlay District, its impact on historic properties, the
ability to demolish existing housing and replace with middle housing, the provision
regarding middle housing in new subdivisions, and the State Legislature’s rationale for
passing the bill. Mr. Kuhfuss provided answers to those questions.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Beverly Richards asked for clarification as to whether middle housing could be
constructed outside of the Overlay District. Mr. Kuhfuss provided clarification.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1193
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting September 2, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 6 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 7 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard together.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections,
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1194
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key
takeaways.

Questions from Committee:
Chair Steven Bowser asked if the provision to apply the MH Overlay District to 20
percent of the lots within a new subdivision of 10 acres or more is citywide. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Bowser stated that all Arizona State Land
Department (ASLD) auctioned parcels are over 10 acres, noting that this provision
would impact the Desert View Village, unless developers plat subdivisions less than 10
acres at a time. Chair Bowser asked if middle housing is required to be provided. Mr.
Zambrano responded that middle housing would have to be allowed on at least 20
percent of the lots within the subdivision to comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano
added that the developer could still choose to not build middle housing on those lots.
Mr. Zambrano stated that the developer will tell the City which lots within their
subdivision they want to apply the MH Overlay District, and then staff would send a
supplementary zoning map to the City Council to adopt. Chair Bowser asked if middle
housing could be clustered together within the subdivision. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively, noting that there are no restrictions on how the MH-zoned lots have to be
dispersed throughout the subdivision. Chair Bowser asked for clarification that the City
cannot require fire sprinklers. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Zambrano
stated that there were recent updates to the Phoenix building code, noting that they
were also following this legislation, and the updates to the building code would address
any safety concerns.

Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked if the opt-in provision for new subdivisions of 10 acres
or more citywide is optional. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law requires any
new subdivision of 10 acres or more to allow middle housing on 20 percent of the lots
within the subdivision.

Committee Member Joseph Barto stated that “must allow” does not sound like a
mandate. Committee Member Barto stated that it sounds like an allowance. Mr.
Zambrano responded that it is a requirement of the State law.

Vice Chair Lagrave asked if a developer can opt to not build middle housing within a
subdivision. Mr. Zambrano responded that the developer can opt to not build middle
housing, but the zoning must still allow for it on 20 percent of the lots within the
subdivision. Vice Chair Lagrave asked if a new homeowners association (HOA) has to
comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs can have stricter
restrictions than the City. Mr. Zambrano added that the City does not enforce HOA
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Committee Member Richard Carlucci asked why the City did not extend the MH
Overlay District around high-capacity transit stops, noting that the data center text

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1195
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

amendment referenced the need for higher-density housing around these areas. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the MH Overlay District is more specific to single-family
subdivisions. Mr. Zambrano added that there are adopted transit oriented development
(TOD) and transit oriented community (TOC) policy plans that provide guidance for
future rezoning requests to rezone to the Walkable Urban (WU) Code within these
policy plan areas, which does not have any density limitations. Committee Member
Carlucci asked if there was consideration to extend the MH Overlay District to other
areas of the city in order to help increase the supply of housing and bring down housing
costs. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure since he was not involved in the
drafting of this text amendment. Mr. Zambrano stated that the proposed text
amendment is trying to comply with the State law requirements. Mr. Zambrano added
that the MH Overlay District does apply citywide for 20 percent of the lots in any new
subdivision of 10 acres or more. Committee Member Carlucci asked how many single-
family lots are within one mile of Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded that he
was not sure. Mr. Zambrano stated that there are a lot of single-family lots within the
area, including some historic districts. Mr. Zambrano stated that the State law does not
override existing historic design review requirements. Committee Member Carlucci
stated that the same development standards as a single-family home does not do a lot
to provide more housing, noting that much smaller units would have to be squeezed into
the building envelope. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would depend on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. Zambrano displayed and discussed the typical lot setback exhibit. Committee
Member Carlucci stated that the City seems to be doing the bare minimum to comply
with the State law, noting that Phoenix is one of the fastest growing cities that needs
more housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City is working on other efforts to
increase housing options, such as the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) text amendment
and expanding the WU Code around transit corridors. Mr. Zambrano added that the
State legislature is passing legislation simultaneously, so the City has to keep up with
the legislation as well.

Vice Chair Lagrave disagreed with Committee Member Carlucci. Vice Chair Lagrave
stated that Phoenix is a wide open, western place. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that
Phoenix is not New York City, nor Baltimore, nor Chicago. Vice Chair Lagrave stated
that Phoenix is a spread-out city with a certain lifestyle. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that
he does not want houses crammed into the city that creates a concrete jungle. Vice
Chair Lagrave stated that he wants the space to have trees and homes where families
can be raised.

Committee Member David Kollar stated that it is a moot point since the State law
already passed. Committee Member Kollar asked for clarification that if the text
amendment does not get passed by the end of the year, then all City restrictions go
away. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the State law included a
severe penalty clause that stated if the regulations are not adopted by January 1, 2026,
then middle housing will be allowed on all lots zoned for single-family residential use
citywide, without any limitations. Mr. Zambrano added that “without any limitations”
could mean without any zoning controls whatsoever.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1196
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

Chair Bowser asked for clarification that a subdivision of 10 acres or more that applies
the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots would not be heard by the Committee.
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it would be without any public
hearing. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff would send a supplementary zoning map to the
outside of the areas applicable to the State law, could still request to rezone to the MH
Overlay District through the public hearing process.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if the subdivision would have to be of 10 acres or
more. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is a request to rezone to the MH Overlay
District, it does not have to be of 10 acres or more.

Chair Bowser stated that there are patio homes that were built prior to the 1980s along
Scottsdale Road south of McDonald Drive that seem to be a middle housing option.
Chair Bowser stated that they are still quite nice and are higher-density and affordable
homes. Chair Bowser stated that they could be a great product if done well
architecturally. Mr. Zambrano responded that part of the text amendment is also
amending Section 507 Tab A of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to update the Individual
Unit Design Standards to also apply to middle housing and require design review of
middle housing.

Committee Member Jason Israel asked if ADUs would still be permitted. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Zambrano stated that the text amendment is
also amending sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance so ADUs would only be
permitted on a lot with one primary dwelling unit. Committee Member Israel asked
where the City is at within the timeline. Mr. Zambrano responded that the cases would
be voted on by the Planning Commission in October and the City Council in November.

Committee Member Kollar asked if it is common for the State legislature to play a
hand in local zoning regulations. Mr. Zambrano responded that it has been more
common recently.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

Committee Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1197
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Three members of the public registered to speak on this item, with one in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

Chris DePerro, with the City of Phoenix Planning Department (PDD), provided a
presentation on the City’s Middle Housing Text Amendment and accompanying Overlay
District. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be
reviewed first to provide context which would establish the Middle Housing Overlay
District in areas of central Phoenix. Mr. DePerro explained that this initiative stems from
House Bill 2721, passed during the 2024 legislative session, which requires all Arizona
cities with populations over 75,000 to allow middle housing under certain conditions. Mr.
DePerro stated that the Middle Housing, as defined in the legislation, includes duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes, up to a maximum of four units per lot. Mr.
DePerro emphasized that the legislation was state-mandated, not locally initiated and
outlined several requirements of the bill, including the requirement to allow up to four
dwelling units per single-family lot in certain areas of central Phoenix. Mr. DePerro
explained that at least 20 percent of the lots in any new subdivision of 10 contiguous
acres or more must permit middle housing. Mr. DePerro stated Middle Housing must be
treated no more restrictively than single-family housing in terms of permitting, review,
and development standards. Mr. DePerro further explained restrictions that the City may
not impose, including requirements for fire sprinklers, owner occupancy, or more than
one off-street parking space per unit. Mr. DePerro stated the City also may not
discourage rental housing or impose regulations more restrictive than those applied to
single-family dwellings. Mr. DePerro emphasized that if Phoenix fails to adopt the
required regulations by January 1, 2026, middle housing would automatically be allowed
without limitation on all single-family residential lots in the city. Mr. DePerro then
described Text Amendment Z-TA-12-5-Y, which revises zoning regulations to comply
with state law, and Rezoning Case Z-3-25-4-7-8, which applies the overlay district to the
one-mile area surrounding downtown Phoenix as required. Mr. DePerro explained that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1198
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

the overlay district would function in addition to the existing underlying zoning, allowing
either the density permitted by zoning or four units, whichever is greater. Mr. DePerro’s
presentation included maps outlining the overlay district boundary, which follows a one-
mile radius around the designated downtown core. Mr. DePerro said the Federal
aviation noise contours exclude certain areas from the overlay due to restrictions on
residential density near the airport. Mr. DePerro clarified that historic preservation
regulations remain unchanged, including demolition restrictions and review procedures
for historic properties. Mr. DePerro also noted that recent code updates extended the
review stay for eligible properties from 30 days to 60 days. Mr. DePerro provided
development examples on typical R1-6 lots, including setbacks, building envelopes, and
limitations on lot coverage. Visual examples of duplex and fourplex designs were shown
to illustrate how middle housing could be integrated within existing neighborhoods. Mr.
DePerro stressed that the proposal does not permit subdivision of lots beyond existing
entitlements, nor does it allow more units than authorized by law. Mr. DePerro provided
an example demonstrating how 20 percent of lots would be designated for middle
housing and mapped with the overlay district. Mr. DePerro emphasized that subdivision
design could accommodate varied lot sizes or locations for middle housing. Mr. DePerro
reviewed the proposed timeline for Planning Commission for information in September
and recommendation was scheduled for October 6. Mr. DePerro stated the City Council
will consider action on November 5, 2025. Mr. DePerro provided a summary and noted
the middle housing requirement is state-mandated, must be applied within one mile of
downtown and to 20 percent of new subdivisions over 10 acres and the City faces the
risk of losing zoning controls entirely if regulations are not adopted by the state
deadline.
Mr. DePerro directed attendees to additional resources at phoenix.gov/middlehousing

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Warnicke asked if the driving force behind the legislation was the
historical shift away from middle housing. Mr. DePerro responded that while he did not
want to speak directly to the legislature’s intent, many consultants and proponents
suggest that the law is a way to increase density in areas where it has become difficult.
Mr. DePerro acknowledged that there are broader policy discussions surrounding the
issue, but he could not say with certainty why the legislature chose this approach.

Committee Member Warnicke stated that historically there had been middle housing,
but that it is no longer permitted, and noted that multifamily housing is not currently
allowed in single-family residential zoning. Mr. DePerro responded that multifamily
housing is not permitted in single-family zoning districts. Committee Member Warnicke
asked when multifamily development is allowed. Mr. DePerro responded that multifamily
zoning is typically applied through separate zoning designations and is defined as a lot
that allows more than one primary unit. Committee Member Warnicke stated that this
would include duplexes and apartments. Committee Member Warnicke noted that the
state requires the provisions to apply within one mile of the Central Business District,
but the definition of that area varies. Mr. DePerro responded that neighborhoods such
as Willo, La Hacienda, and Alvarado, while zoned R1-6 or R1-10, technically allow
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1199
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

duplexes under certain lot conditions, which makes them multifamily zones. Mr. DePerro
stated that those districts only allow duplexes on larger lots and that this provision does
not actually increase density. Committee Member Warnicke confirmed that duplexes are
still permitted under those designations and suggested that they could therefore be
considered multifamily zoning. Mr. DePerro responded and noted that point but
explained that the state law requires the city to apply the middle housing provisions to
lots zoned for single-family uses which includes the areas in question. Committee
Member Warnicke expressed frustration, stating that these lots already allow multifamily
development and that applying the law in this manner threatens historic neighborhoods
and noted that historic designation can be lost if more than 50 percent of contributing
homes are removed. Committee Member Warnicke said that the overlay boundary
appeared to cut into La Hacienda while avoiding his own property. Mr. DePerro stated
that the city’s text amendment is intended to comply with state law, regardless of
whether the legislature considered impacts on historic neighborhoods. Committee
Member Warnicke stated that the state law only applies to single-family residential
properties, and reiterated his position that some of these areas should be classified as
multifamily. Mr. DePerro stated that he and Mr. Warnicke appeared to disagree on that
interpretation. Committee Member Warnicke asked about the 20 percent multifamily
requirement for subdivisions. Mr. DePerro responded that the requirement applies only
to new subdivisions of 10 acres or more, typically in areas such as north Phoenix, and
not to existing neighborhoods. Committee Member Warnicke asked if this meant there
was no 20 percent cap on middle housing in neighborhoods like Willo. Mr. DePerro
responded that there is no such cap and that, if the overlay were approved, any eligible
lot within Willo could potentially develop as middle housing, including fourplexes.
Committee Member Warnicke concluded by stating that this would allow widespread
redevelopment in historic areas. Mr. DePerro agreed that this was correct under the
proposed application of the state law.

Committee Member Procaccini asked what would happen if the City chose to reduce
the size of the Central Business District, noting that it might be considered beneficial in
some cases to shrink the designated downtown area. Mr. DePerro responded that there
are two potential issues with that approach first, the state law specifies that the
applicable Central Business District boundaries are those that were designated as of
September 14, 2024 and no changes can be made at this point. Mr. DePerro stated
second, the law also contains a provision prohibiting cumulative or individual actions by
municipalities that interfere with housing development. Mr. DePerro said that if city were
to attempt to shrink the boundaries, it could be considered noncompliant under that
provision and that the September 14, 2024 designation date is the controlling factor.

Committee Member Wagner stated that under normal procedure, text amendments
are presented to Village Planning Committees for information only, followed by at least
a month to review and provide input and in this case, however, the process was not
being followed. Committee Member Wagner said that the proposed text amendment is
178 pages long and was only received by the committee a few days prior to the
meeting, which made it very difficult for members to adequately review the information
and further expressed that the amendment would greatly benefit from committee input
and questioned why the committee was not being given that opportunity.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1200
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

Joshua Bednarek, PDD Director, responded that it was a valid concern and explained
that the planning staff were attending all Village Planning Committee meetings this
month to provide information and ensure that word about the new law was reaching the
community. Mr. Bednarek stated that the language presented in the amendment reflects
the minimum requirements of state law, leaving little room for adjustment and the City’s
priority is compliance with the law and meeting the statutory deadline requiring City
Council action later this year. Mr. Bednarek expressed that while staff values feedback,
the purpose of these presentations are primarily informational and offered to provide his
contact information to any committee members or members of the public who wished to
ask further questions. Committee Member Wagner stated that while she appreciated the
explanation, she remained concerned. Committee Member Wagner shared the concern
that neighborhoods had been in contact with other cities, which were approaching the
legislation differently and actively working to mitigate its impacts. Committee Member
Wagner emphasized that the City of Phoenix was not necessarily taking the bare
minimum approach, and that this issue warranted more public discussion with Village
Planning Committees. Committee Member Wagner also questioned the stated deadline,
noting that City staff had known about the legislation since February 2024, according to
emails. Committee Member Wagner said this with the accessory dwelling unit
legislation, which passed in May and had to be implemented by January 2025 and in
the case of the middle housing bill, she said, cities were given an additional year to act.
Committee Member Wagner expressed frustration that the committee was being told
there was no more time to review the amendment, despite Phoenix having had
significantly more time to prepare.

Committee Member Kleinman asked for clarification regarding the timeline of the
legislation and stated his understanding that the State of Arizona passed the bill during
the 2024 legislative session, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. Committee
Member Kleinman noted that cities are required to adopt local regulations by that same
date and asked whether the City of Phoenix had the authority to extend or delay the
effective date, or whether it must begin enforcement on January 1, 2026. Committee
Member Kleinman explained that his concern was twofold if the state legislature
amends the law during the upcoming session, it would be problematic for the city to take
action prematurely and then be unable to undo its decisions. Committee Member
Kleinman suggested that, at a minimum, the city should consider delaying
implementation until any potential state-level amendments are resolved. Mr. Bednarek
responded that the idea of delaying the effective date had been suggested and was
referred to the City’s Law Department and the initial response was that the law is clear
in requiring implementation on January 1, 2026. Mr. Bednarek noted that delaying
implementation could put the city at risk of being found noncompliant and added that the
matter could be further discussed with the Law Department and potentially with the City
Council.

Committee Member Rodriguez stated that she supports the house bill overall but
expressed disappointment that it did not extend further and explained that her home,
built in 1932, was located just outside of the overlay area. Committee Member
Rodriguez stated that she would like the opportunity to redevelop her property into
housing that contributes to the city’s future, which she considered part of building a
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1201
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

better history. Committee Member Rodriguez noted that her neighborhood lacks the tax
incentives, gated communities, safe bike lanes, and other infrastructure present in other
areas, while still experiencing challenges such as cut-through traffic from the reverse
lanes, she stated that the bill does not go far enough and encouraged the city to be
bolder in extending its provisions. Committee Member Rodriguez added that other
cities, such as Portland, have implemented similar policies without significant impacts
from demolitions, and she offered to share those examples with the committee.

Committee Member Wagner stated that the city was aware of legislation introduced in
the prior session seeking to exempt historic districts and emphasized that while she
supports rental housing, she also values maintaining historic districts, which have been
carefully preserved for decades. Committee Member Wagner noted that another
attempt to exempt historic districts may be made in the upcoming legislative session
and stated there is concern that the current 178-page text amendment appeared to be a
rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, rather than a simple overlay as previously described.
Committee Member Wagner questioned why the committee had not been told earlier
that such extensive changes would be included and asked why multifamily provisions
were being revised when the legislation was directed at single-family zoning. Mr.
DePerro responded that he had described the amendment as involving extensive
revisions in several prior presentations and that this approach was taken out of caution
due to the statutory requirement that single-family and middle housing be treated
identically. Mr. DePerro stated in many parts of the Zoning Ordinance, the two are
treated differently, with middle housing subject to more restrictive provisions therefore,
significant revisions were necessary to bring them into alignment. Mr. DePerro clarified
the mechanism for implementation and stated that the text amendment itself does not
grant entitlements but the following agenda item the zoning case would apply the Middle
Housing Overlay (MH) to properties. Mr. DePerro stated the text amendment
establishes the framework and creates the overlay district, but actual entitlement would
only occur through a rezoning action and noted that the opt-in provision for 10-acre
subdivisions functions similarly, requiring a property owner to request the overlay before
it is applied. Committee Member Wagner responded that her neighborhood had held
several meetings with the PDD and had repeatedly asked for a seat at the table during
the drafting of the amendment. Committee Member Wagner expressed frustration that
those requests were not accommodated and that the committee was now being asked
to consider the amendment at the last minute without sufficient time for review.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Mr. Will Kerwin introduced himself as a resident on Willetta Street stated that he lives
in a duplex where two different houses are located on the same lot and considered a
plan to rent out the back unit once it became unoccupied, and asked if that would still be
possible under the proposed ordinance. Mr. DePerro responded that, without knowing
the exact circumstances, nothing being proposed should change an existing entitlement
and confirmed that if the second residence is currently legal, then the entitlement
remains. Mr. DePerro invited Mr. Kerwin to send him specific details by email so staff
could research the property’s history and provide a clear response and emphasized that
the ordinance was intended to add entitlement for additional units, not take away
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1202
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

existing rights. Mr. Kerwin shared a neighborhood concern regarding an individual who
built a multi-story structure, which appeared to have been left unfinished and that
residents suspected the intent was to drive up property taxes to force buyouts, though
he acknowledged this may not be true. Mr. DePerro replied that if the structure was built
without permits, that would be a code enforcement issue and asked for clarification
about whether the construction was permitted. Mr. Kerwin clarified that he was raising
the example hypothetically and asked whether, under the ordinance, someone could
legally construct a multi-story building for speculative purposes. Mr. DePerro explained
that the ordinance did not increase allowable building height, setbacks, or envelope
limits and the intention of the changes only addressed the number of units allowed on a
lot. Mr. DePerro stated that the ordinance would not permit a five-story building in a
single-family neighborhood, since the existing height and setback limits would still apply.
Mr. Kerwin acknowledged the clarification but asked whether there was a way to
mitigate the impact of increased property taxes on neighbors. Mr. DePerro responded
that property taxes are difficult to predict and stated that values can both rise and fall,
referencing the Great Recession when values plummeted. Mr. DePerro stated that the
ordinance had been crafted with a focus on zoning and entitlements, and broader
economic impacts such as property taxation had not been a primary consideration.

Mr. Mike Mark introduced himself as a resident on Holly Street and stated that he had
several questions and asked whether the city currently knew how many lots would be
impacted by the ordinance, noting that there are empty lots that could be targeted. Mr.
Mark added that estimating the number of eligible lots would be helpful, since it was
likely that developers would begin to purchase such properties to take advantage of the
new entitlements. Mr. DePerro responded that the estimate was on a graphic he had
previously shared, but he did not have it readily available at the meeting and apologized
and stated that he could provide the figure later. Mr. DePerro confirmed that the
calculation was included in staff’s analysis and agreed that vacant lots zoned
appropriately would be among the first likely to be impacted. Mr. Mark asserted that this
suggested a likely targeting of properties for redevelopment and asked whether the
city’s Middle Housing website included real-life examples of duplexes, triplexes, or
fourplexes on single-family lots. Mr. DePerro responded that the photos shown in the
presentation were real examples from Phoenix and had been used to illustrate what the
ordinance would proceed. Mr. Mark confirmed that the images were taken from within
Phoenix, including areas near a neighborhood dog park in the area of 3rd Avenue and
Culver Street, but emphasized his concern that the ordinance appeared punitive toward
historic properties. Mr. Mark expressed that the proposal seemed almost surgically
targeted to impact historic neighborhoods in particular and added that he wished the
policy could instead be mirrored so that his neighborhood would be affected rather than
historic districts, which he believed should be spared from such negative impacts.

Joan Gresch stated she is a longtime resident of the area since 1977 and had
concerns for the committee regarding historic preservation and the impact of recent
state laws. Ms. Gresch shared her personal experience restoring a historic home from
the 1920s in downtown Phoenix with her husband while earning less than $20,000 per
year at the time. Ms. Gresch stated that the Historic Preservation program provided tax
incentives and guidelines that allowed them and others to rehabilitate historic properties
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1203
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

appropriately, contributing to the revitalization of the neighborhood. Ms. Gresch
expressed concern that recent state interventions have undermined these protections
and threatened the progress made over decades. Ms. Gresch urged the city to support
residents if legal action arises, emphasizing the emotional and financial investment her
family has made in preserving the historic character of their home and neighborhood.
Mr. DePerro responded that the current law, while allowing up to four units on a
property, does not remove existing historic preservation protections and stated that the
design review processes and other safeguards under both state law and city plans
would remain in place. Ms. Gresch acknowledged this clarification but emphasized that
the broader context and discussion about preserving historic districts remain critical.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED, COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Procaccini asked whether the city’s website allowed residents to
type in their address to determine if their property fell within the proposed middle
housing overlay area, noting that he lived near the boundary and was unable to tell. Mr.
DePerro responded that the website did provide that function and that members of the
public could also email him directly with an address and he would confirm the
information, often faster than the online tool.

Committee Member Wagner asked how many square miles were included in the
middle housing overlay area shown on the map. Mr. DePerro responded that he did not
have the exact figure memorized but estimated that the area covered between five and
six square miles in and around downtown. Mr. DePerro noted that this represented a
small portion of Phoenix overall, which spans approximately 520 square miles.
Committee Member Wagner said that, while the overlay represented only five to six
square miles, it was still a significant area when viewed in comparison to the entire city.

Committee Member Kleinman expressed concern about the impact of increasing
housing in historic neighborhoods and asked whether the city could mandate that new
housing developments, specifically those referenced in the middle of the presentation
on page 92, be designated as workforce or affordable housing. Committee Member
Kleinman emphasized the need to prevent historic homes from being replaced by high-
cost fourplexes potentially used for short-term rentals, such as Airbnb. Committee
Member Kleinman asked if there were any mechanisms to limit high-cost townhouses
and short-term rentals in these historic areas. Mr. DePerro responded that both short-
term rentals and affordable housing requirements are largely restricted by state law. Mr.
DePerro explained that the city has minimal control over short-term rentals and cannot
require affordable housing in zoning cases or stipulations and stated that while the city
can incentivize affordable housing, it cannot mandate it and that the city is exploring
other potential approaches to mitigate community concerns while remaining compliant
with state law, although no solutions had been finalized. Mr. DePerro emphasized that
the city is listening to feedback and seeking ways to balance middle housing
requirements with the preservation of historic districts.

Committee Member Wagner stated that, in line with Committee Member Kleinman’s
concerns about workforce housing, a neighboring property near the dog park as
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1204
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

formerly mentioned recently sold for $2.6 million. Committee Member Wagner noted
that this example indicates the development is unlikely to provide affordable housing.

Committee Member Perez asked whether any language incentivizing affordable or
workforce housing had been considered in the text amendment and asked if such
measures could be incorporated as a potential avenue for encouraging these types of
housing. Mr. DePerro responded that while such incentives could potentially be
considered, they had not been included in the current text amendment and stated that
the language as written represents the minimum required to comply with state law. Mr.
DePerro acknowledged the concerns about providing additional incentives or
protections but emphasized that state law does not require these provisions, and their
absence is consistent with legal compliance.

Committee Member Kleinman expressed frustration with the city’s limited flexibility
under state law and recalled past experiences in which the city initially faced restrictions
but eventually implemented changes, noting that simply complying with state law does
not preclude the city from exploring measures that could benefit Phoenix. Committee
Member Kleinman stressed that fear of potential lawsuits should not prevent proactive
efforts to improve outcomes for the city and its residents. Mr. Bednarek responded
noting that any action outside the boundaries of state law could trigger complaints to the
Attorney General under State Statute 1487, potentially putting $850 million in state
funding at risk. Mr. Bednarek clarified that such disputes do not automatically go to
court and follow a 30-day process. Committee Member Kleinman stated that the city
has previously navigated conflicts with state law in other contexts, such as fair wages,
and argued that avoiding any attempt to push the envelope in this case seems overly
cautious. Committee Member Kleinman emphasized that his comments were meant as
an opinion and not a directive, expressing his perspective that the city could explore
creative approaches without undue risk. Mr. Bednarek responded stating that he took
no offense to the comments and appreciated the perspective.

Committee Member Rodriguez shared her perspective on affordable housing and the
overall benefits of increasing housing stock and invited fellow committee members and
staff to collaborate on initiatives aimed at promoting affordable housing. Committee
Member Rodriguez emphasized that increasing housing availability can make housing
more accessible in general and stated differing viewpoints on historic preservation but
expressed the belief that denser, thoughtfully designed housing can contribute positively
to the community’s history. Committee Member Rodriguez also highlighted that parts of
Phoenix, including this area, benefit from some of the city’s most successful public
transportation systems and bike lanes and suggested that adding new housing,
regardless of affordability designation, could help reduce overall housing costs by
increasing supply. Committee Member Rodriguez stated it is important to encourage
broader collaboration and engagement from committee members on housing issues.

Committee Member Warnicke commented on the public comments and expressed
appreciation for the eloquence of the previous speaker and said she is absolutely right
in what we are facing is an existential threat to our historic neighborhoods. Committee
Member Warnicke stated the idea of launching 5,000 homes into these areas is
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1205
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

alarming and has asked the city how many historic homes are at risk, and still had not
received an answer. Committee Member Warnicke stated if we estimate 5,000 homes
and allow fourplexes on each, that’s 20,000 residences replacing 5,000 single-family
homes. Committee Member Warnicke stated that in the past year alone, over 20,000
apartments have come online, and there’s another 20,000 expected next year and there
is already a glut. Committee Member Warnicke stated this attack on historic
neighborhoods is not only unnecessary it is absurd and will not achieve its intended
goals. Committee Member Warnicke stated these lots will be subdivided or made
available for affordable purchase and they will be expensive, likely short-term rentals
like Airbnbs and this is very upsetting. Committee Member Warnicke stated there will be
a lawsuit but not against the state and the state can pass these laws, but the city is not
obligated to adopt a text amendment that implements them in this way. Committee
Member Warnicke stated there is a legal argument for exempting R1-6 and R1-10
zones, especially those with homes subdivided before 1998 or 1999 and these areas
are already entitled to duplexes because our historic neighborhoods are already denser
than many of the true single-family neighborhoods in Phoenix that do not allow
duplexes. Committee Warnicke stated his office is in a home that was converted from a
duplex which are scattered throughout the Willo Neighborhood. Committee Member
Warnicke stated the city does not have to do this it is choosing to and that is why there
is going to be a fight with the city. Committee Member Warnicke stated he should not
have to fight both the state and the city, but that’s the position we have been put in
which is ridiculous. Committee Member Warnicke stated we have invested hundreds of
thousands, maybe millions in historic preservation grants and encouraged families, like
the one who restored two old homes, to take advantage of tax benefits and reinvest in
their properties. Committee Member Warnicke stated this was in the 1980s and he
remember walking up 5th Avenue to Kenilworth School. Committee Member Warnicke
stated back then, homes had planks over the stairs and people were rolling motorcycles
into their living rooms and that is what the neighborhood was like before it became the
Willo Neighborhood. Committee Member Warnicke stated we saved that neighborhood
and saved others which helped create the city that people now want to walk through
and now they want to tear it all down and build fourplexes. Committee Member
Warnicke stated he could not be more livid, and he is going to do everything he can to
stop it.

Chair Montaño Searles reminded everyone that the item under discussion is part of
the timeline presented earlier in the meeting and explained that the matter went to the
Planning Commission for information only on September 4 and it is scheduled for the
Planning Commission with a recommendation on October 6, and then it will go before
city’s website and navigate to the public meetings section under the City Clerk’s page
for more information and also welcomed continued public participation, noting that if
individuals want to make their voices heard, that is the place to do so and thanked
everyone for their comments and reiterated that today’s item was for information only.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1206
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 16, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within one
mile of the Downtown Code boundary

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms.
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms. Sanchez
Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does not adopt
regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed without any
zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties designated
historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where middle
housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by displaying
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments.

Questions from the Committee:

Kristine Morris asked for clarification regarding new subdivisions and homeowner
associations. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that homeowner associations can add restrictions
to prohibit middle housing.

Dustin Thrower stated that the homeowner associations would not exist until the entire
subdivision was established. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if the developer built a single-
family house on an established middle housing lot, then the owner would have to
circumvent the regulations established by the homeowner’s association. Mr. Thrower
voiced his confusion on how homeowner associations can prohibit middle housing. Ms.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1207
Estrella Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 16, 2025
Page 2

Morris added that someone who purchases a home with a homeowner association is
typically buying into more restrictions.

Chair Parris Wallace noted that this type of development will not be required to come to
the committee for recommendation.

Romona Burris asked if this was just another strategy to increase housing within the City
on top of already establish policy like the Housing Phoenix Plan. Chair Wallace
confirmed.

Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if anyone had any additional questions, they could contact
her or send an email to the email address provided.

Ms. Burris voiced concern about how this would affect neighborhoods such as Coronado
and if residents would lose their properties. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if someone
owned their property, it was their decision if they wanted to convert their lot to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that they would still have to meet all the development
standards and if the property is historic, then it would have to go through the Historic
Preservation Office first.

Marcus Ceniceros asked if this would only apply to one mile from downtown. Ms.
Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the only way this would occur in
Estrella was if there were any new subdivisions of 10 acres or more and if an applicant
rezoned their property to add the overlay district.

Chair Wallace noted that a lot of housing projects have been approved and asked what
would happen to those projects. Mr. Thrower added that it would depend on the acreage.
Chair Wallace noted an approved housing project with a lazy river. Ms. Sanchez Luna
noted that that proposal was for multifamily residential.

Ms. Burris asked if historic neighborhoods are in danger. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
they had voiced some concerns. Ms. Burris stated that this type of housing was bound to
happen. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that proposed middle housing projects had to be
compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that
middle housing could be one two-story house with one family on the first floor and one
family on the second floor. Chair Wallace voiced her excitement and approval and noted
that Estrella would like to see more housing.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1208
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms.
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms. Sanchez
Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does not adopt
regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed without any
zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties designated
historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where middle
housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by displaying
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments.

Questions from the Committee:

Carlos Ortega asked if all the other major cities were affected by the bill. Ms. Sanchez
Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that she was unaware of the exact
regulations that other cities will be implementing.

Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen asked if the text amendment would eventually expand
beyond the one-mile radius around downtown. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that if a
proposed development wanted to provide the ability for middle housing, then they would
have to rezone the site to add the overlay.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1209
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 8, 2025
Page 2

Linda Abegg asked for more information regarding the boundary and asked if that was
implemented by the House Bill or the city. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the House Bill
stated that it had to apply within one mile of downtown and that the City determined that
Phoenix’s downtown was the area zoned Downtown Code. Ms. Abegg asked for more
information regarding parking. Ms. Abegg is asked if a fourplex was built, would the
development be required to have eight parking spaces. Ms. Sanchez Luna note that
she would have to confirm. Ms. Abegg stated that her concern was private streets and
subdivisions that prohibit on-street parking. Ms. Abegg asked if HOA’s are exempt. Ms.
Sanchez Luna noted that HOA’s can prohibit middle housing but would confirm.

Co-Vice Chair Jensen stated that this was accessory dwelling units on steroids. Mixen
Rubio-Raffin added that this would mean separate addresses and utilities.

Ms. Rubio Raffin was surprised that this came from the State Legislature but hoped
that this would allow more individuals to buy their own homes.

Ms. Abegg understood the frustration of the residents that this would affect and
wondered how this would relate to Proposition 207.

Chair Stephanie Hurd noted that it would change the neighborhood.

Ms. Abegg asked how staff would track on-street parking. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted
that she would have to follow up regarding the parking inquiry.

Juanita Darby noted that she used to live in a duplex, and she still had her own
driveway and backyard.

Chair Hurd added that some diversity would be good, but that the Laveen character
called for large-lot single-family homes. Ms. Darby noted an existing subdivision with
large lots in Laveen.

Vice Chair JoAnne Jensen stated that the city has been built with primarily single-
family neighborhoods and noted that that this type of development would be more
appropriate in lots built to accommodate middle housing.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin added that businesses in high-density neighborhoods are more
successful than those in rural areas and could create a higher demand for street
enhancements and pedestrian amenities.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1210
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and
were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Members Melissa Acevedo and Victoria Stahl entered during these items
bringing quorum to 12.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, began the presentation by providing background
information on House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle
housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that middle housing
must be compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses. Ms.
Sanchez Luna summarized the middle housing requirements for the City. Ms.
Sanchez Luna noted the severe penalty clause that stated that if a municipality does
not adopt regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be allowed
without any zoning controls or restrictions. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that properties
designated historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example
where middle housing may or may not fit. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the
presentation by displaying the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for
comments.

Questions from the Committee:
Warren Norgaard asked if the overlay district would apply to the downtown area. Ms.
Sanchez Luna displayed the map and noted that it would apply to the pink area
around downtown.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1211
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8


Saundra Cole voiced her concern for the historic neighborhoods and added that she
did not want these areas to be negatively affected. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that all
historic neighborhoods would still be subject to review by the Historic Preservation
Office. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that if the City did not add any parameters, then
middle housing would be allowed without any limitations or development standards.

Chair Gene Derie stated that if someone requested to demolish a historic house, they
would have to petition the Historic Preservation Office for approval and to remove the
historic structure. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the Historic Preservation Office does
review any properties that are either designated or eligible for historic designation.

Chair Derie announced that this presentation was for information only and that the
committee would not be voting on either the rezoning case or the text amendment.
Vice Chair Chris Demarest asked if the companion cases would return to the Village
Planning Committee (VPC) for a recommendation in the upcoming months. Ms.
Sanchez Luna clarified that both cases will not return to the VPC and displayed the
proposed timeline noting the dates for the Planning Commission hearing and the City
Council hearing.

Vice Chair Demarest noted that it was odd that the House Bill would require middle
housing one mile from downtown if that is where many of the historic houses are
located. Chair Derie added that all municipalities with a population of 75,000 or
higher would be required to allow middle housing. Chair Derie added that cities such
as Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, and Chandler are all required to permit middle housing.
Vice Chair Demarest stated that all those cities had historic houses within one mile
of their designated downtown and that he would have liked to have a vote on the
companion cases.

Andrea Ramirez asked if the Villages that were directly affected would be allowed to
vote on the companion cases. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that they would not be
voting.

Mike Weber asked who established the parameters. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the House Bill established the one-mile radius. Mr. Weber clarified that he would like
to know the development standards for middle housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed
the single-family lot example and noted that middle housing would still be required to
meet all required development standards such as lot coverage, building setbacks, and
projections. Mr. Weber asked about height. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that in a
single-family zoned lot, the maximum height is two stories or 30 feet and that any
middle housing development in a single-family lot would be permitted to be as tall as
two stories or 30 feet.
Vice Chair Demarest stated that most neighborhoods within the one-mile buffer did
not have an established homeowner’s association.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1212
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8


Alvin Battle asked what was considered downtown. Ms. Sanchez Luna displayed
the map and noted the grey area that was zoned Downtown Code. Chair Derie
provided the street boundaries for downtown and the one-mile buffer.

Ken DuBose asked what each case would accomplish. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated
that the text amendment case Z-TA-1-25-Y would modify the Zoning Ordinance to
allow the development standards for middle housing and the rezoning case Z-3-25-4-
7-8 established the overlay district.

Ms. Ramirez asked if a developer could convert a lot of commercial properties to
middle housing. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified that the only way it would apply to
Maryvale was if there were any new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or more built
or if a property was rezoned.

Public Comment:

None

Committee Discussion:

Mr. Weber voiced his displeasure for all the palm trees in the pictures. Chair Derie
and Mr. Weber noted that palm trees provide no shade and require a lot of water.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1213
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 8 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 9 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the
State Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not
apply to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not
exempt under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design
review procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing
demolition restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to
allow two-story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical
building setback exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same
zoning development standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage,
setbacks, height, projections, building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano noted that
the text amendment includes revisions so accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are only
permitted on a lot with one primary dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of
different types of middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1214
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

the City to allow subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the
City is not proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by
existing property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-
in provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous
acres or more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the
subdivision without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano
concluded with the timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional
resources, and key takeaways.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Kylie Kennelly asked why the State legislature restricted
requiring fire sprinklers. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is probably more of an
expensive requirement that multifamily residential development typically triggers. Mr.
Zambrano added that the Phoenix building code has recently been updated and was
following this legislation. Mr. Zambrano stated that the walls between units would still
be required to be fire-rated.

Committee Member Will Manion asked if the opt-in provision for new subdivisions of
10 acres or more has to be 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision or if it could be
less than 20 percent. Mr. Zambrano responded that it has to be 20 percent.

Chair Julie Read stated that there is a big concern with the historic districts
surrounding Downtown Phoenix and the threat this legislation has to historic homes.
Chair Read stated that there is a historic preservation group that will be trying to get
the State legislature to address this in the next legislative session. Chair Read
suggested that individuals reach out to their respective representative if this topic is
important to them.

Mr. Zambrano added that the State bill does not change existing design review
requirements for historic properties or demolition restrictions for eligible historic
properties.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

Committee Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1215
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 17, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle joined the meeting during this item bringing the
quorum to 9 members present.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the proposed text
amendment and rezoning case, highlighting the background regarding state
legislation, details of the proposed zoning text to revise regulations and create the
Middle Housing Overlay District, the boundary of the proposed overlay, and a
summary of the timeline for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITEE

Committee Member Bill Adams asked what the Legislature’s rational was for
passing the bill. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not want to speak for the State
Legislature but for the last several years, the Legislature has been trying to address
the housing affordability issue. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that in 2024, the State Legislature
passed another bill which required municipalities to adopt regulations relating to
Accessory Dwelling Units by January of 2025 and that the Middle Housing Bill
required adoption by January of 2026.

Committee Member Jim Larson asked if the law applies to currently vacant lots or
when a property becomes available on the market allowing the owner to then
demolish the property and construct a four-plex on the property. Mr. Kuhfuss asked if
the question was directed towards properties located within the pink polygon.
Committee Member Larson confirmed that was the case. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that it
was his understanding that a property owner could demolish the site and construct a
four-plex and that there is no provision that requires it be owner-occupied. Committee

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1216
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

Member Larson stated that it was his understanding that the effect of the bill was to
render Historic Preservation areas null and void to allow a developer to demolish a
house to build a four-plex. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he was not 100% familiar with the
nuances of Historic Preservation and that it was his understanding that certain
protections remain in place for properties that lie within a historic neighborhood
including a waiting period prior to demolition, and a requirement that the new building
fit the neighborhood.

Committee Member Matthew Knapp asked if on new subdivisions is the developer
required to construct middle housing on the 10% of lots that were earmarked as such.
Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the threshold was 20% not 10% and that the law requires the
lots to be earmarked but there is no requirement for the developer to exercise that
right.

Committee Member Patrick Edwards asked for clarification that if he owned a
house within the pink polygon, his neighbor could demolish the neighboring house
and construct middle housing. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that was the case.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked if the property was deed-
restricted, would that still be the case. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that deed restrictions are
private agreements between property owners and that Middle Housing would not
supersede that agreement. Committee Member Sommacampagna asked for clarity on
the Central Business District. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he was not sure how the statute
defined the Central Business District, but the City of Phoenix has defined the
Downtown Core as the basis for determining the one-mile buffer. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that there were other municipalities where the Central Business District was not
aligned with their downtown area.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1217
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 7 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 8 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation
Adrian Zambrano provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections,
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1218
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key
takeaways.

Questions from the Committee
Committee Member Anna Sepic asked why the lots with the MH Overlay District in a
new subdivision 10 acres or more would be allowed to be dispersed randomly
throughout the subdivision. Committee Member Sepic stated that the lots that have the
MH Overlay District should be located adjacent to each other. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the State law did not specify how to disperse the MH-zoned lots within a
subdivision. Committee Member Sepic asked if the City is asking for feedback on how it
should be implemented. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City is taking comments and
feedback, but the City must still comply with the State law so there are some limitations
on changes that can be made. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff could take the comment
and look into it.

Committee Member Robert Goodhue stated that there have been certain subdivisions
in the past that restricted lots to one-story along certain exterior boundaries of the
subdivision in order to not affect other adjacent one-story properties. Committee
Member Goodhue asked if the lots zoned for middle housing within a subdivision could
similarly be restricted. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law states that the City
cannot restrict middle housing to less than two stories. Mr. Zambrano added that if the
lots within a subdivision along a certain exterior boundary were restricted to one-story,
then the lots zoned for middle housing would have to be placed elsewhere within the
subdivision. Mr. Zambrano added that certain areas of a lot do not allow two stories,
such as in the rear yard of the lot where projections are allowed.

Committee Member Jennifer Hall asked why the Village Planning Committees are
hearing these items for information only. Mr. Zambrano responded that these cases are
to comply with State law, so the City is only having these cases voted on at the two
required public hearings for Planning Commission and City Council.

Committee Member Toby Gerst stated that this State requirement seems very
onerous.

Committee Member Sepic stated that it looks like it would be at almost 100 percent lot
coverage. Mr. Zambrano responded that the maximum lot coverage allowed for single-
family residence districts is 50 percent, so lots within the MH Overlay District would still
have to comply with the maximum lot coverage allowed. Mr. Zambrano added that an
additional 10 percent lot coverage is allowed for attached shaded structures or
accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Mr. Zambrano clarified that part of the text
amendment includes revisions that would only allow ADUs on lots with one primary
dwelling unit on the lot.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1219
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

Committee Member Robert Gubser asked for clarification that ADUs cannot be placed
on a lot with a duplex or triplex. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that
ADUs would only be allowed on a lot with one primary dwelling unit on the lot.

Committee Member Sepic asked if someone could buy a lot with a single-family home,
demolish it, and build a fourplex on the lot by-right. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is
within the MH Overlay District within one mile of downtown, or on a lot zoned with the
MH Overlay District within a new subdivision 10 acres or more, then it would be allowed
by-right. Committee Member Sepic asked why the City chose downtown where there
are historic homes. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State Legislature stated that the
law applies within one mile of downtown, and the area zoned as Downtown Code states
in the code that this area shall be known as “downtown”. Mr. Zambrano stated that this
boundary is the adopted downtown area.

Committee Member Goodhue asked for clarification that any new subdivision of 10
acres or more is citywide. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that for these
subdivisions it would only apply to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision.
Committee Member Goodhue asked if the units have to be owner occupied or if they
can be rentals. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law states that the City cannot
require owner occupancy.

Committee Member Sepic stated that the majority of homes within one mile of
downtown are historic properties. Mr. Zambrano responded that the State law does not
take away existing design review requirements for historic properties, so they would still
have to go through that process.

Public Comments
None.

Staff Response
None.

Committee Discussion
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1220
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary.


VPC DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Will Holton joined the meeting during this item, bringing the quorum
to five members.

Agenda Item 3 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of House Bill 2721, noting that the State
Legislature required cities with a population of 75,000 or more to adopt these
regulations. Mr. Zambrano displayed types of housing that are known as middle
housing. Mr. Zambrano shared the definition for middle housing within House Bill 2721.
Mr. Zambrano shared where middle housing would be permitted, as required by the
State law. Mr. Zambrano then shared State restrictions on implementation and the
penalty clause within the State law. Mr. Zambrano summarized what text amendment
case Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8 include. Mr.
Zambrano then displayed the map for the Middle Housing Overlay District within one
mile of downtown, noting that “downtown” includes all properties zoned Downtown
Code. Mr. Zambrano shared the airport exclusion area that the State law does not apply
to. Mr. Zambrano stated that properties zoned or designated historic are not exempt
under the State law but noted that the law does not change existing design review
procedures for historic or HP-zoned properties, does not change existing demolition
restrictions for eligible historic properties, and does not require the City to allow two-
story structures everywhere on a lot. Mr. Zambrano displayed a typical building setback
exhibit and stated that middle housing must adhere to the same zoning development
standards as a single-family home, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, projections,
building design, and parking. Mr. Zambrano displayed graphics of different types of

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1221
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

middle housing. Mr. Zambrano shared that the State did not require the City to allow
subdivision of lots developed with middle housing and noted that the City is not
proposing to allow more lots nor smaller lots than is currently permitted by existing
property entitlements. Mr. Zambrano discussed the additional subdivision opt-in
provision included in the text amendment for new subdivisions of 10 contiguous acres or
more to apply the MH Overlay District to 20 percent of the lots within the subdivision
without public hearing, as required by the State law. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the
timeline for public meetings and public hearings, additional resources, and key
takeaways.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Eileen Baden thought it was interesting that the State said that
the City could not require any structures to contain a fire sprinkler.

Vice Chair Scott Lawrence asked if this requirement is only for the City of Phoenix.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the restrictions on implementation within the State law
apply to all cities and towns that the State law is applicable to. Mr. Zambrano added that
there was a recent update to the Phoenix building code that was passed. Mr. Zambrano
stated that they were also following this legislation and made the updates to the building
code accordingly. Mr. Zambrano stated that the walls between the units would still have
to be fire-rated walls.

Committee Member Baden asked for clarification that the City could still require one
off-street parking space per unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Committee Member Ozzie Virgil asked if homeowners associations (HOAs) could
restrict middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs could restrict it in new
subdivisions, but within subdivisions of 10 acres or more, at least 20 percent of the lots
have to be zoned to allow middle housing, in order to comply with the State law.
Committee Member Virgil stated that he does not believe the airport exclusion area is
because of the noise and is instead because of potential airplane crashes. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the City discourages residential within this area because it is
so noisy from airplanes.

Chair Cotton asked if the State law would apply to Anthem, which is not a City. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the State law would apply to any city or town with a
population of 75,000 or more. Chair Cotton asked for clarification that the west side of
Anthem is within the City of Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair
Cotton stated that there are multifamily residential condominiums that were built behind
the Goodwill along Interstate 17.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that they are townhomes.
Mr. Zambrano stated that they could have been developed under a certain
development option in a single-family residence district that allows townhomes.

Committee Member Baden stated that it could be zoned for commercial as well.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1222
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

Committee Member Will Holton asked how a population of 75,000 or more is defined.
Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be based on the census data available for the
city or town.

Committee Member Baden asked what the population is in the City of Phoenix. Mr.
Zambrano responded that it is 1.6 million.

Chair Cotton stated that the census includes children of all ages.

Committee Member Holton asked if the images are real-life examples of what to
expect. Mr. Zambrano responded that the images are graphics from the Opticos
Design Missing Middle Housing book. Committee Member Holton expressed concern
with access for emergency personnel. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be treated
the same as a single-family home. Mr. Zambrano added that the State said that the City
cannot require fire sprinklers for middle housing but there would still be fire-rated walls
between units.

Chair Cotton asked for clarification that there is nothing that the City can do since the
City has to comply with the State law. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that the intent is to reduce housing costs since developers
would be able to build more units on a lot.

Committee Member Holton asked if property taxes would be increased for the
homeowner of the original home. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the units would still all be on one lot.

Committee Member Baden asked about accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Mr.
Zambrano responded that the text amendment would also update sections of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to only allow ADUs on a lot with only one primary dwelling
unit.

Vice Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that middle housing would still be allowed
outside of the one-mile radius from Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded that
citywide, middle housing will be allowed on 20 percent of the lots within any new
subdivision of 10 acres or more. Vice Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that it would
not be allowed anywhere else throughout the city. Mr. Zambrano responded that it
would not be allowed by-right. Mr. Zambrano stated that if a new subdivision less than
10 aces wants to have middle housing and is outside of the one-mile radius from
Downtown Phoenix, or if an existing subdivision wants to build middle housing, then
those subdivisions can request to rezone to the MH Overlay District through the public
hearing process.

Committee Member Holton asked if the State law would allow tents or recreational
vehicles as dwelling units. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would have to be a fixed
structure. Mr. Zambrano stated that there are established definitions in the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance. Committee Member Holton asked if modular homes would be

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1223
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

acceptable as middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are certain design
review requirements for modular homes. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment
will also update a section of the Pheonix Zoning Ordinance to require design review for
middle housing. Committee Member Holton asked if middle housing would still have to
figure out how to tap into the existing water and sewer lines. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively, noting that the Water Services Department would still review each site and
would require certain improvements, if necessary, when going through the plan review
and permitting process.

Committee Member Baden asked if the developers of subdivisions of 10 acres or more
are required to build middle housing. Mr. Zambrano responded that 20 percent of the
lots within a new subdivision of 10 acres or more are required to be zoned to allow
middle housing. Mr. Zambrano stated that the developer can choose to not build middle
housing on the lots zoned with the MH Overlay District and can choose to build single-
family homes on those lots instead.

Committee Member Holton asked if there is any precedent for middle housing. Chair
Cotton responded that when he stayed in Los Angeles, he rented a duplex. Chair
Cotton added that growing up in New Hampshire, there were multiplexes everywhere.
Chair Cotton stated that Phoenix is one of the only bigger places he has seen that does
not allow it. Committee Member Holton asked if middle housing is a trend.

Committee Member Baden responded that middle housing is historical.

Chair Cotton stated that middle housing has been around forever, but Phoenix has
only allowed single-family homes.

Committee Member Virgil stated that Oklahoma has a lot of middle housing.

Chair Cotton stated that Florida also has middle housing.

Committee Member Holton stated that this State law seems like it is full of problems,
but he does not know what other cities have encountered. Mr. Zambrano responded
that in Arizona, most cities and towns have only allowed single-family zoning.
Committee Member Holton asked for clarification that this would be new to Arizona. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that in the past, developers were still able to build middle
housing in Phoenix, as long as it was zoned for multifamily.

Mr. Zambrano responded that the difference with this law is that the duplex, triplex, or
fourplex would be built on a single-family zoned lot.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that a typical developer would likely locate all the MH-
zoned lots together within a subdivision.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1224
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

Committee Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1225
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Proposal Request to map the boundaries for the Middle Housing
Overlay District (Z-TA-1-25-Y) located generally within
one mile of the Downtown Code boundary

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (Z-TA-1-25-Y) and Item No. 5 (Z-3-25-4-7-8) are companion cases and were
heard together.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, began the presentation by providing background information on
House Bill 2721 that required the City of Phoenix to allow middle housing. Mr. Rogers
displayed examples of middle housing such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and
townhomes. Mr. Rogers noted that middle housing must be compatible in scale, form,
and character with single-family houses. Mr. Rogers summarized the middle housing
requirements for the City. Mr. Rogers described the penalty clause that stated that if a
municipality does not adopt regulations by January 1, 2026, then middle housing shall be
allowed without any zoning controls or restrictions. Mr. Rogers added that properties
designated historic are not exempt under the state law and provided an example where
middle housing may or may not fit. Mr. Rogers concluded the presentation by displaying
the proposed hearing timeline and contact information for comments.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked whether developers of new subdivisions of 10 acres
or more would provide both a single-family and middle housing product. Mr. Rogers
confirmed that new subdivision of 10 acres or more could develop with both housing
products.

Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez inquired whether this was a statewide
requirement. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the State law applies statewide.

Committee Member Mark Beehler asked whether the 20% middle housing in new
subdivisions was a requirement or an option. Mr. Rogers clarified that it is an option.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 9, 2025


Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for clarification on the overlay area. Mr.
Rogers displayed the overlay map and described its boundaries. Committee Member
Brownell asked if the one-mile buffer was measured from a central point in downtown.
Mr. Rogers explained that it is measured from the boundaries of the Downtown Code.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether the State had reviewed or approved the
proposed boundary. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not sure what the State has reviewed
but confirmed that the proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Law Department.

Committee Member Brownell inquired whether the proposal would allow two-story
structures in the rear setback. Mr. Rogers explained that middle housing developments
will still be required to comply with zoning standards, including setbacks, and the
proposal will not change where two stories can be built.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether a one-story single-family home could
add a second-story unit. Mr. Rogers stated that it could.

Committee Member Lee Coleman asked whether the proposal would impact Average
Lot Subdivisions. Mr. Rogers stated that the proposed changes would consolidate
subdivision options into a “Standard” option and a “Planned Residential Development”
option.

Chair Greathouse asked whether there had been any research into how many units
this proposal could add to the market. Mr. Rogers explained that research had not been
conducted, as not every lot can feasibly fit four units or would redevelop.

Chair Greathouse asked whether 20% of lots or units would be permitted to develop as
middle housing in new subdivisions. Mr. Rogers stated that it is 20% of lots.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk asked when in the process a developer would
indicate they are using the middle housing provisions. Mr. Rogers explained this would
occur during the platting stage. Committee Member Marchuk asked whether a
developer could show a single-family product during rezoning and later add middle
housing at platting. Mr. Rogers confirmed that is possible.

Committee Member Beehler asked whether the Village Planning Committee sees the
plat. Mr. Rogers stated that the VPC sees the conceptual lot layout during rezoning, but
platting occurs after that process.

Committee Member Brownell asked who would own the units if a developer built four
on one lot. Mr. Rogers stated that there are no ownership restrictions and explained
that condominiums are uncommon in Arizona due to State liability laws. Committee




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 9, 2025

Member Brownell expressed concern that the proposal will not promote generational
wealth.

Committee Member Beehler stated that middle housing is unlikely to be implemented
in South Mountain, as developers may be reluctant to mix housing types and reduce
home values. Committee Member Marcia Busching stated that middle housing lots
can be clustered in one location within a subdivision and stated there is an upcoming
rezoning case with a mix of townhomes and single-family homes.

Committee Member Marchuk asked how rezoning stipulations regarding building
elevations would apply if middle housing is later designated. Committee Member
Busching explained that middle housing lots must be identified at the time of plat
recording. Mr. Rogers stated that the rezoning process is followed by the platting
process and stated he would follow up with more information.

Committee Member Busching asked why this item was presented for information only
rather than recommendation. Mr. Rogers stated he did not know but would follow up.

Committee Member Marchuk asked for clarification on the boundaries of the overlay.
Mr. Rogers explained that the proposal includes two elements: a one-mile overlay
surrounding Downtown, and a citywide provision allowing 20% of lots in new
subdivisions of 10 acres or more to develop middle housing.

Vice Chair Emma Viera asked whether a subdivision could develop middle housing
regardless of community input. Mr. Rogers stated that 20% of lots in qualifying
subdivisions may develop middle housing, but the VPC can still recommend denial of
rezoning requests. Vice Chair Viera emphasized the importance of community
involvement. Mr. Rogers responded that State law prohibits requiring a public hearing
for this provision.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether a property owner outside the overlay
could add a second story unit. Mr. Rogers clarified that the 20% rule only applies to
qualifying new subdivisions. Committee Member Busching stated a second story unit
could be added through accessory dwelling unit (ADU) process.

Committee Member Coleman asked whether a duplex could be developed on an
existing R1-6 lot. Mr. Rogers stated that it is only permitted within the overlay or in
qualifying new subdivisions. Committee Member Busching noted that an ADU could
be built.

Committee Member Marchuk referenced a development with a single large lot and
asked if the proposal could increase its density. Mr. Rogers stated that the proposal
only applies to new subdivisions.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-3-25-4-7-8
September 9, 2025

Committee Member Brownell asked who reviews ADUs. Mr. Rogers stated that
ADUs are reviewed by the site planning team and clarified that middle housing
developments under this proposal may not include ADUs, as they are multifamily.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether someone with property in the overlay
could build another home. Mr. Rogers stated that an additional unit may be possible if
development standards allow it.

Committee Member Brownell asked whether middle housing could be used as short-
term rentals. Mr. Rogers stated that he believes there are no restrictions on short-term
rentals. Committee Member Brownell asked what restrictions exist for short-term
rentals. Mr. Rogers stated that a notice to neighbors may be required.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.

None.




ATTACHMENT D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
OCTOBER 6, 2025

ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: 4, 7, and 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-3-25-4-7-8 (Companion Case Z-TA-1-25-Y)
Request: Map the boundaries for the Middle Housing Overlay District
(Z-TA-1-25-Y)
Location: Generally within one mile of the Downtown Code boundary
From: Various zoning districts
To: Various zoning districts with Middle Housing Overlay District
Acreage: Approximately 4,467.45
Proposal: Rezoning application to apply an overlay to properties generally within one
mile of the Downtown Code boundary in conjunction with a text
amendment to address recent changes to state statute regarding missing
middle housing.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department,
Christopher DePerro

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in Exhibit B of the Staff Report.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 9/29/2025 Information only.
Alhambra 9/30/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 9/9/2025 Information only.
Central City 9/8/2025 No quorum.
Deer Valley 9/16/2025 Information only.
Desert View 9/2/2025 Information only.
Encanto 9/8/2025 Information only.
Estrella 9/16/2025 Information only.
Laveen 9/8/2025 Information only.
Maryvale 9/10/2025 Information only.
North Gateway 9/11/2025 Information only.
North Mountain 9/17/2025 Information only.
Paradise Valley 9/8/2025 Information only.
Rio Vista 9/9/2025 Information only.
South Mountain 9/9/2025 Information only.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, as shown in Exhibit B of the Staff Report.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Gorriaz made a MOTION to approve Z-3-25-4-7-8, as shown in
Exhibit B of the Staff Report.

Maker: Gorraiz
Second: James
Vote: 5-3 (Sorenson, Matthews, Boyd)
Absent: Hu
Opposition Present: Yes.

Findings: The proposed rezoning will create a Middle Housing (MH) Overlay District in
conjunction with a text amendment to address recent changes to state statute regarding missing
middle housing.

Proposed Zoning Overlay Boundary:




This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT E

From: Dan Clark
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: Flight Path Areas
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 6:55:41 AM




Hello,

I wanted to suggest that the flight path areas should be included in your map. Perhaps you
create a rule that anything built in that area must have certain sound protection. Given the ‌
pushback and lobbying you're getting from Willo, if they are successful you will lose a lot of
areas to build. I am in support of middle housing and this flight path area seems like a perfect
place with some good city planning given how sparse the area is and the desperate need for
housing even if not ideal.

Thanks




ATTACHMENT F

From: L Shannon Bryant
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: Proposed Middle Housing
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 2:00:29 PM









From: Jen LaPointe
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: Historic neighborhood impact?
Date: Sunday, August 10, 2025 9:31:13 PM







Hello! I am writing to voice my concerns over the proposed zoning changes in downtown
Phoenix neighborhoods, specifically federally registered historic places. To allow duplexes,
triplexes or fourplexes on single family lots in registered historic neighborhoods (ie, Ashland
Place) would negate the entire character and reason for the historic neighborhoods in the first
place. There needs to be very specific planning involved to determine lots that make sense for
this or havoc will ensue creating a mish-mash blend of issues between single family lots and
multi-family lots. This needs to be thoughtful planning not a blanket rezoning. I am not
against density but many lots should not be more than a main house and one ADU only.
Jamming a fourplex next to a single family home will create a myriad of issues alone.
Developers will buy up all the lots and true neighborhoods will be no longer.

Please tell me the historic neighborhoods would be exempt from this? Otherwise, there will
be no more history-

Sincerely,
-Jennifer LaPointe, P.E., LEED AP
Take Flight, LLC




From: bplasencia
To: PDD Middle Housing; bplasencia Plasencia
Subject: Willo property owner statement
Date: Monday, August 11, 2025 5:51:24 PM







Hello
My name is Beth Plasencia. I have lived in the Willo neighborhood for nine years.
After raising our children in Chandler, we wanted to experience the benefits of living
and working in midtown Phoenix. The uniqueness of Willo drew us in and we purchased
our home.

Living in mid town does not come without its issues. HOWEVER, we feel our
neighborhood and its sense of community outweighs those issues.

We bought a single family home in the Willo neighborhood which is zoned as a single
family residential neighborhood. The State of Arizona and the City of Phoenix threaten
our home which is also a major investment. The state laws have been passed with little
or no input from citizens for superseding existing zoning and historic designations in
cities. This impact on the historic districts is tremendous and potentially fatal to the
neighborhood.

We bought a single family home. Never in all the states I lived in has zoning been
changed lacking the input of the people that own the property. After this bill was passed
by the legislature, with little or no thought on how the impacted neighborhoods would
feel, the City adjusted the Central Business District boundaries that impact most of the
historic communities in the city including the Willo.

A four-plex in Willo will not be affordable. Currently there are town homes for sale on
first avenue that are over $1,000,000. What it will do is lower the property values in the
Willo and other historic neighborhoods. It will cause lower values for single family
homes, street parking issues, traffic problems, and change the vibe of the neighborhood.
How many places in Phoenix do neighbors regularly assemble for happy hours,
community events and that is highly inclusive of all neighbors.

Although not able to attend tonight I will wear white clothing in spirit to support the
neighborhoods. The changes that allow four-plexes is unethical if not illegal. I feel I
was not given a voice rather eminent domain was implemented without fair

representation of the impacts on Willo and other historic communities. Please consider
exceptions for historic areas, ones that have come back from decline. Once these historic
homes are gone they never will be rebuilt.

Beth Plasencia
326 W Windsor Ave


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]




From: bplasencia
To: PDD Middle Housing; Doug Plasencia
Subject: Willo property impact statement
Date: Monday, August 11, 2025 5:53:10 PM







The legislature playing partisan politics has perpetrated under false claims of affordable
housing the ability to change residential densities in single family neighborhoods within one
mile of a business district. This shift hits historic districts particularly hard because of the
proximity of historic neighborhoods to the city centers. The cities have not as of yet effectively
pushed back against this law in part due to competing agendas that pit neighborhoods against
urban redevelopment funds.

In spite of partisan politics and city led special interest agendas what these officials are
ignoring is that they are setting the stage for a taking of property rights. Inverse condemnation
is a well understood tenet where the action of another owner or in this case government can
not take action that harms another property. Second is the concept of due process where
these policies and competing interests can debate community matters. A legislative hearing
hardly qualifies as due process to notify those impacted and to provide a balanced voice. City
officials that ignore this due process issue are likewise culpable.

As a nine year resident of a historic district impacted by this change, I implore the City to take
every action to reverse this law and when the first permit comes to the City that no approvals
be given that violates the bedrock constitutional principles of no taking including inverse
condemnations, or that violates the premise of due process as described in the constitution.

Doug Plasencia
326 W Windsor Ave


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]




From: Debby
To: PDD Middle Housing
Subject: text amendment Z-TA-1-25-Y and rezoning case Z-3-25-4-7-8
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:11:24 PM








I am strongly opposed to this!! This area contains the only architecture worth saving
in the entire city - It has charm, community, and tradition -there is still some greenery
to keep Phoenix cooler! Why quadruple the population in this tiny area when there is
the entire desert around us? Where will the water come from? Why not keep the
developers happy in North Phoenix where they can build the cheap tickey-tackey
houses they’ve started?

Debby Gelbspan
81 E Ashland Ave




Written Testimony for Public Record

Case: Z-TA-1-25-Y (Middle Housing Text Amendment) and Z-3-25-4-7-8 (Companion
Rezoning)


Date: August 14, 2025
To: City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department; Planning Commission; City Council
From: Gregg and Lisa Carrington
Address: 26 W Vernon Ave (Willo Historic District)
Email: greggcarrington@gmail.com
Residents, Willo Historic District (National Register & HP overlay)



Position

We oppose Z-TA-1-25-Y and the companion Z-3-25-4-7-8 as currently drafted. We respectfully
request revisions that (1) fully leverage existing historic preservation review and demolition
controls in HP districts, (2) align implementation with adopted neighborhood conservation plans,
and (3) prevent unintended incentives to demolish contributing historic structures.

While we strongly support protecting all of Phoenix’s historic neighborhoods, we understand
from the recent public meeting that the City may not be granting exemptions to the Middle
Housing Law. If so, it is even more critical that this ordinance incorporate the following six
amendments to ensure state compliance and the preservation of the character and integrity of
these districts.

We support the efforts of Save Historic AZ and the Willo Neighborhood Association,
specifically:

1. Exemption for historic districts from the Middle Housing Law;
2. Using the “Business Core” section of the Downtown Code (DTC) as the Middle Housing
zone — which would set the northern boundary at Palm Lane instead of Thomas Road;
3. Including delayed implementation in the text amendment. While the law says it must be
adopted by Jan. 1, 2026, it does not require immediate activation.


Context

The State’s 2024 law (A.R.S. § 9-462.13 via HB 2721) requires cities to allow up to four
dwelling units per lot within one mile of Downtown and limits required off-street parking to no
more than one space per unit. State law does not exempt historic districts, but it also does not
change Phoenix’s existing HP design review or demolition-approval procedures.




Phoenix is home to many unique and historically significant neighborhoods — from Encanto-
Palmcroft to Garfield to Coronado to Willo — each with its own architectural character. In
Willo, for example, we already have historic duplexes, triplexes, and quads that fit seamlessly
into our historic fabric because they were built to match the neighborhood’s scale, setbacks, and
styles. The amendments we propose would allow that kind of compatible middle housing
in all historic districts while discouraging demolition-first redevelopment and out-of-scale
construction.

We also live in the most densely populated area of Phoenix, and the Willo Neighborhood has
supported every multi-family housing project adjacent to our neighborhood for the past 25
years — including Tapestry, Muse, Arthaus, Willo Lofts, and more. We recognize the housing
shortage, but opening historic districts to demolition and speculative redevelopment will not
solve the crisis — it will only destroy irreplaceable heritage.



Lessons from the 1970s

Phoenix’s 1960s–70s “urban renewal” policies demolished large portions of downtown’s historic
fabric. Blocks of irreplaceable architecture, including historic fire stations and early commercial
buildings, were replaced with lifeless concrete structures. While Heritage Square was saved at
the last moment, the broader damage is still regretted today. We should not repeat those mistakes
in our historic neighborhoods.



Why preservation and “middle housing” can co-exist

Research from the National Trust for Historic Preservation shows that older, smaller buildings
help neighborhoods thrive economically, socially, and environmentally. Adaptive reuse avoids
the problems created by demolition and maintains the unique character that draws people to our
city.

Middle housing can and should be integrated into historic districts — but only if design, scale,
and reuse are prioritized over demolition.



Specific Concerns

1. Demolition Risk in HP Districts – Without strong reinforcement of HP rules in this
ordinance, there is an incentive to demolish contributing homes and replace them with
box-style fourplexes built to minimum parking standards.
2. Parking Impacts – The state parking cap (1 space per unit) will cause spillover onto
already-congested streets unless paired with curb-management tools.




3. Conflict with Conservation Plans – Adopted neighborhood conservation plans
emphasize rehabilitation and compatibility; this amendment could shift economics
toward teardown if left unchecked.



What Still Applies in Historic Neighborhoods

• HP Design Review – COA or CNE required for exterior changes and infill.
• HP Demolition Approval – Separate HPO review and hardship process still required for
demo of contributing structures.
• Local Authority Remains – Council can reinforce HP rules in the MHOD text and pair
the overlay with parking management, adaptive-reuse incentives, and extended
demolition holds.



Six Required Amendments

1. HP Applicability Clause: All middle housing in HP districts must follow HP design
review and demolition approval procedures — including Certificates of
Appropriateness/No Effect, demolition approval, and the Certification of Economic
Hardship process.
2. Form Compatibility: Require middle housing in HP districts to match the same
frontage, setbacks, height planes, lot coverage, and porch/entry patterns already required
for single-family homes in the district’s HP guidelines. This allows neighborhoods like
Willo to continue integrating duplexes, triplexes, and quads that match the historic fabric,
while preventing out-of-scale or incompatible new builds.
3. Adaptive-Reuse Incentive: Create a fee reduction and expedited review for projects that
add units by converting the interior of existing contributing homes instead of demolishing
them.
4. Curb Management Commitment: Pair the overlay with Residential Permit Zones or
similar curb-management tools so parking caps don’t overwhelm historic streets.
5. Annual Report: Require staff to track and report demolitions, adaptive reuse vs.
teardowns, and parking impacts in HP districts every year.
6. Extended Demolition Hold: Increase the demolition hold period for contributing historic
properties in HP districts from the current 1 year to 2 years, allowing more time to
explore preservation and adaptive-reuse options before historic structures are lost.



Legal Defensibility

These six amendments are fully compatible with A.R.S. § 9-462.13. The statute establishes
minimum entitlements for middle housing but explicitly leaves in place local Historic
Preservation design review, demolition controls, and administrative procedures. None of these



amendments reduce the number of units allowed, impose a more restrictive process than that
applied to single-family homes in the same HP district, or increase parking requirements beyond
the state cap. Instead, they operate within the City’s retained authority to manage design,
demolition timing, and neighborhood compatibility — tools the state deliberately left in local
hands.



Conclusion

Since no exemptions will be provided for historic districts, the only path to protecting the
character of Phoenix’s historic neighborhoods while meeting state housing mandates is to embed
these six amendments into Z-TA-1-25-Y / Z-3-25-4-7-8.

Phoenix can comply with state law and ensure that middle housing in historic districts is
compatible, context-sensitive, and preservation-minded. Please adopt these changes before final
approval.

Respectfully,
Gregg and Lisa Carrington
Residents, Willo Historic District




RCVD 9/29/2025
Save Historic AZ
PO Box 33922
Phoenix, AZ 85067
savehistoricaz@gmail.com


Dear Honorable Councilmember,

We are writing to urge you to recognize that the Middle Housing Law does not apply to Phoenix’s historic neighborhoods,
nor should it.

Historic neighborhoods are already entitled to more diverse housing options. These areas, including Willo, F.Q. Story, and
others, already support density with historic duplexes and casitas (ADUs). The Middle Housing law aims to introduce multi-
family options in areas restricted to single-family use. That is not the case in our historic districts, which are already zoned for
higher density.

The Phoenix Zoning Code reinforces this:
R1-6 lots subdivided prior to 1998 are already entitled to duplexes (Table 6.13B).
R1-10 lots subdivided prior to 1999 have similar entitlements (Table 6.11B).
These properties are explicitly described as having “multi-family development” potential, and are therefore not classified
as “single-family residential zoning”—which is the key condition required for the Middle Housing Law to apply.

If the Legislature had intended this law to override all zoning classifications, it could have done so. Instead, it limited the
law’s scope. Applying it where it does not belong undermines the intent of both the statute and our city’s historic preservation
goals.

Applying this law to historic neighborhoods poses an existential threat to those districts. Once a district falls below 51%
contributing structures, it risks losing its historic designation entirely. The City has invested significant federal, state, and local
funding into preserving these neighborhoods and in encouraging residents to restore and live in them.

Allowing the Middle Housing Law to take root in historic areas would:
Incentivize demolition of historic homes,
Accelerate the erosion of historic character, and
Transfer wealth from residents to institutional investors operating four-plexes as short-term rentals.

This is not hypothetical—it is already happening in cities that failed to protect their historic cores. We ask the City to formally
adopt this legal interpretation: The Middle Housing Law does not apply to our historic districts. We urge you to stand with us
in defending Phoenix’s legacy neighborhoods from inappropriate zoning changes that will permanently alter their character.

For more information on the tremendous cultural and economic value these districts provide, we invite you to review this
report: https://www.placeeconomics.com/resources/preservation-phoenix-style/

Thank you for your service to our city and for helping us preserve its unique history.


Sincerely,


Bradley Brauer, President, Opal Wagner, Co-Chair, Elle January, President,
Willo Neighborhood Association Save Historic AZ Los Olivos Historic Neighborhood
Co-Chair, Save Historic AZ
Robert Warnicke Sasha Robinson, President
Robert Warnicke Law PLC Story Preservation Association
https://savehistoricaz.com

From: Paul Zagnoni
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:56 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: A.R.S. Section 38-431.02




Dear Honorable Councilmembers, I am writing you as an owner of a historic home in LA Hacienda for
over 25+ years to urge you to recognize that the Middle Housing Law does not apply to Phoenix's historic
neighborhoods, nor should it.

Historic neighborhoods are already entitled to more diverse housing options. These areas, including
Willo, F.Q. Story, andothers, already support density with historic duplexes and casitas (ADUs). The
Middle Housing law aims to introduce multi-family options in areas restricted to single- family use. That is
not the case in our historic districts, which are already zoned forhigher density.

The Phoenix Zoning Code reinforces this:

·R1-6 lots subdivided prior to 1998 are already entitled to duplexes (Table 6.13B).

· R1-10 lots subdivided prior to 1999 have similar entitlements (Table 6.11B).

·These properties are explicitly described as having "multi-family development" potential, and are
therefore not classifiedas "single-family residential zoning"-which is the key condition required for the
Middle Housing Law to apply.

If the Legislature had intended this law to override all zoning classifications, it could have done so.
Instead, it limited thelaw's scope. Applying it where it does not belong undermines the intent of both the
statute and our city's historic preservationgoals.

Applying this law to historic neighborhoods poses an existential threat to those districts. Once a district
falls below 51%contributing structures, it risks losing its historic designation entirely. The City has
invested significant federal, state, and localfunding into preserving these neighborhoods and in
encouraging residents to restore and live in them.

Allowing the Middle Housing Law to take root in historic areas would:

·Incentivize demolition of historic homes,

·Accelerate the erosion of historic character, and




1 1244
·Transfer wealth from residents to institutional investors operating four-plexes as short-term rentals.

This is not hypothetical-it is already happening in cities that failed to protect their historic cores. I ask the
City to formally adopt this legal interpretation: The Middle Housing Law does not apply to our historic
districts. We urge you to stand with us in defending Phoenix's legacy neighborhoods from inappropriate
zoning changes that will permanently alter their character

Thank you for your service to our city and for helping us preserve its unique hheritage.

Paul Zagnoni

602-571-1681 cell




2 1245
From: Laura Zagnoni
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 12:06 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Middle Housing (Z-TA-1-25-Y and Z-3-25-4-7-8)


For meeting occuring on October 6, 2025, 6:00 pm, Agenda item #2:

Save Historic AZ

Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
I am are writing to urge you to recognize that the Middle Housing Law does not apply to Phoenix's historic
neighborhoods, nor should it.
My family has resided in a historic district for over 25 years (Willo, and now La Hacienda) and have
chosen to stay because of the value and community within these districts. We urge you to consider the
points made below as well as the residents and communities that would be adversely affected.

Historic neighborhoods are already entitled to more diverse housing options. These areas, including
Willo, F.Q. Story, andothers, already support density with historic duplexes and casitas (ADUs). The
Middle Housing law aims to introduce multi-family options in areas restricted to single- family use. That is
not the case in our historic districts, which are already zoned forhigher density.
The Phoenix Zoning Code reinforces this:
·R1-6 lots subdivided prior to 1998 are already entitled to duplexes (Table 6.13B).
· R1-10 lots subdivided prior to 1999 have similar entitlements (Table 6.11B).
·These properties are explicitly described as having "multi-family development" potential, and are
therefore not classifiedas "single-family residential zoning"-which is the key condition required for the
Middle Housing Law to apply.
If the Legislature had intended this law to override all zoning classifications, it could have done so.
Instead, it limited the law's scope. Applying it where it does not belong undermines the intent of both the
statute and our city's historic preservationgoals.
Applying this law to historic neighborhoods poses an existential threat to those districts. Once a district
falls below 51%contributing structures, it risks losing its historic designation entirely. The City has
invested significant federal, state, and localfunding into preserving these neighborhoods and in
encouraging residents to restore and live in them.
Allowing the Middle Housing Law to take root in historic areas would:
·Incentivize demolition of historic homes,
·Accelerate the erosion of historic character, and
·Transfer wealth from residents to institutional investors operating four-plexes as short-term rentals.

This is not hypothetical-it is already happening in cities that failed to protect their historic cores. We ask
the City to formallyadopt this legal interpretation: The Middle Housing Law does not apply to our
historic districts.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important matter.
Laura Zagnoni




1 1246
From: PAT KORDELSKI
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 7:49 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Bill to destroy historic neighborhoods by allowing four-plexus to be built on property
HB 4721




I am sending my vote to disagree with the proposed legislation to allow this outrageous travesty to
our historic neighborhoods. Legislating after the fact and calling it a measure to provide affordable
housing is a misnomer. This is being done under the guise of providing builders and construction
companies the ability to make money on the backs of hard working people who have chosen a
particular area for its charm and sense of community. This is another example of our legislators
doing exactly what they want to do , rather than addressing the housing problem with viable solutions.

Do not destroy our neighborhoods. We are unhappy with this piece of legislation. Shame on this
commission.

Pat Kordelski




1 1247
October 3, 2025
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003



Dear Honorable Commission Members:

On behalf of the Preserve Phoenix board, we strongly urge the commission to recognize that
historic neighborhoods should be exempt from HB 2721. We are calling for the commission and
city council to act immediately to adopt protective zoning amendments that recognize the unique
density and character of historic districts and respect their contribution to Phoenix’s identity.

HB 2721 removes local control by requiring Phoenix and other large cities to allow duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes “by right” in single-family zones within one mile of the
Central Business District and in 20% of all new developments over 10 acres. If Phoenix does not
adopt compliant zoning by January 1, 2026, this development will be automatically permitted on
all single-family lots without local review — a permanent and irreversible change.

The “Missing Middle Law” aims to create multi-family options and create denser housing
opportunities in the city. Phoenix’s 36 historic districts — including Roosevelt, F.Q. Story,
Garfield, Coronado, Willo, and others — are among the densest residential neighborhoods in the
city, already zoned R-1-6, which has allowed multifamily options since 1998.

We believe that the city should work to retain robust demolition review and design guidelines for
contributing structures, ensuring Certificates of Appropriateness and Certificates of Eligibility
remain enforceable and advocate at the state level for legislative changes that explicitly exempt
historic districts from HB 2721’s mandates.

These neighborhoods have proven economic, environmental, and social value: higher property
values, more walkability, greater tree cover, and stronger small-business job growth. HB 2721
provides no exemption for historic districts, risking demolition of contributing and non-
contributing properties alike, and weakening the integrity of districts that depend on a majority
of contributing structures to maintain historic status.

Preserve Phoenix is committed to being a partner in smart, sustainable growth that balances the
need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect the cultural, economic, and




environmental value of our historic districts. Phoenix can grow without losing its soul — but
only if we act now.We respectfully urge you to help protect Phoenix history and defend these
historic districts that are at risk.

Sincerely,



Erin Lindsey
President, Preserve Phoenix


cc: Kate Gallego, Mayor
Members of Council
Joshua Bednarek, Planning & Development
Helana Ruter, Historic Preservation Office




From: Christine Hall
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 9:07 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Middle Housing Agenda item




I object to Agenda Item #2 on Middle Housing (Application # Z-TA-1-25-Y)


Sent from Christine Hall, 1540 W Vernon Ave, Phoenix 85007.




1 1250
From: Nicole Brickner
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 12:26 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition proposed text amendment item 2.




My name is nicole brickner at 602 380 4670. I oppose proposed text amendment, item 2. Thank you
-nicole brickner




1 1251
From: Christopher Bates
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 5:50 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Middle Housing Law




Planning Commission:

I live in Windsor Square and am opposed to the Middle Housing Law being applied in Central
Phoenix, as it may negatively impact historic neighborhoods and their status. The proliferation of
affordable four-plexes and other multi-family housing would surely be good for some, but could
endanger the status of historic districts in our city.


Christopher Bates
230 E. Oregon Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012




1 1252
From: walter switzer
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 7:16 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Historic District Change




Sent from my iPhone
Please vote against the proposal to change the Historic District rules to allow multiple units to be built
on properties in our historic districts. Thank you.
Walter E. Switzer, III, Trustee
369 E. Catalina Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85012




1 1253

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

52 item(s)