View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

(CONTINUED FROM JULY 1, 2021) - Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption -
Rezoning Application Z-49-20-3 - Located Approximately 970 Feet North of the
Northeast Corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue (Ordinance G-6871)

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-49-20-
3 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) for a Community Residence Center.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 1.11 acres
Proposed Use: Community Residence Center

Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Applicant: Matt Ihms
Representative: Matt Ihms

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on May
3, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation by a vote of 11-6.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.

The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed and a petition for a three-
quarter vote was submitted on June 10, 2021. A three-quarter vote is not required.

Location
Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater
Avenue
Council District: 3
Parcel Addresses: 13225 N. 34th St.

Page 370

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 371
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 ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-49-20-3) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).

____________

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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.11 acre site located approximately 970 feet

north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue in a portion of

Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A”, is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-3”

(Multifamily Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

Page 372
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive of
carports and perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where adjacent to
R1-6 zoning.

2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.

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

4. All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window
size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

5. The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large
canopy shade 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 consistent
with a pedestrian environment.

6. Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the site, a
landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with drought-
tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live cover, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

a. Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished appearance
compatible with primary structures that includes material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative
element, such as tile or stamped designs.

b. A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height, and
wrought iron view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along the
eastern property lines where open space is adjacent to the drainage
channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash) east of the site.

8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting all
building entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public sidewalks

Page 373
utilizing the minimum possible distance and providing the most direct route, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed of
decorative pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive
aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a
minimum of 75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be provided,
located near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix
K, “Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus
of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

14. A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called
Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
revised December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or construction
encroachment including fill within this portion of the site in the SFHA, then no
floodplain requirements will be required. If encroachment does occur, then the
following requirements must be met, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard area
boundary limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities
and surrounding properties have been considered, following the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3).
This includes, but 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 needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review and
approval of Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.

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.

Page 374
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager

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

Page 375
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-49-20-3

THAT PART OF LOT 4, OASIS ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, IN
BOOK 45 OF MAPS AT PAGE 20, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 35.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 58 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
35.07 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 59 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
31.89 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 39 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
56.86 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 23 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 56 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
77.99 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 12 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
75.10 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 24 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
58.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 49 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
46.86 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 46 SECONDES WEST A DISTANCE
OF 199.07 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 297.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVERYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, RECORDED
FEBRUARY 18, 2016 IN RECORDING NO 2016-103579, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.

Page 376
Page 377
$WWDFKPHQW%

Staff Report Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

Paradise Valley Village Planning May 3, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2021
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(1.11 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(1.11 acres)

Proposed Use: Community Residence Center
Location: Approximately 970 feet north of the
northeast corner of 34th Street and
Sweetwater Avenue

Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Applicant and Representative: Matt Ihms
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
General Plan Land Use Map Designation acre and Parks/Open Space-Publicly
Owned

Street Map Classification 34th Street Local Street 30-feet east half street

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the
acquisition of vacant, underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate
redevelopment, compatible with the adjacent neighborhood character and
adopted area plans.

Per historic aerial photography, the subject site has remained vacant since it was
annexed from Maricopa County into the City of Phoenix in 1962. The development

Page 378
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

would permit a new use in the area at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding
land uses and appropriately located at the end of a local street absent of residential
homes immediately fronting it. Furthermore, this local street, 34th Street, connects to
Sweetwater Avenue, a minor collector street, which will provide easy access to other
parts of the Village.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that support
a broad range of lifestyles.

The proposal, a community residence center, is compatible with surrounding land
uses in the area which are residential and quasi-public in nature. This use allows a
new housing type that will serve individuals with disabilities in the community to
support a broad range of lifestyles. As stipulated, the development will incorporate
elements to maintain an appropriate scale with the existing neighborhood.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.

The development provides a reasonable level of intensity that is respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhood, which are predominantly built out and
zoned single-family and multifamily residential. The subject site is located at the end
of a local street that presently serves as primary access to residential uses in the area
and a church south of the site. The subject site is adjacent to non-residential uses,
including a church, freeway and a wash, thus no adverse impacts are anticipated on
adjacent land uses if this rezoning request is approved.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal, as stipulated, will be required to provide shade along internal
pedestrian paths and the adjacent public street. This will help to encourage walking
and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by shading hard surfaces, thus cooling the
micro-climate around the project vicinity.

Page 379
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 7.

Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 8.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 9.

Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan: See Background Item No. 10.

State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy: See Background Item No. 11.

Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 12.

Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 13.

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant / Undeveloped R1-6
Vacant / Undeveloped,
North R1-6
Indian Bend Wash
South Single-Family Residential R1-6
East (across Phoenix Indian Bend Wash
Indian Bend Park and Single-Family R1-6
Wash) Residential
West State Route 51 R1-6

R-3 – Multifamily Residential
(Subdivision Development Option)

Standards R-3 Requirements Proposed
Gross Acreage - 1.11 acres
Maximum Number 16 units None (Met, community residence
of Units center with 50 beds proposed)
Maximum Density Maximum 14.5 dwelling units None (Met, community residence
per acre center with 50 beds proposed)

Page 380
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

Standards R-3 Requirements Proposed
Maximum Building 2 stories or 30 feet (except 2 stories or 30 feet (Met)
Height that 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.)

Maximum Lot 45 percent 22 percent (Met)
Coverage
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Front: 34th Street 25 feet 30 feet (Met)

Rear: East 15 feet 21 feet (Met)
property line
Sides: North and 10 feet and 3 feet 15 feet and 127 feet (Met)
south property
lines
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Front: 34th Street 25 feet Not specified*

Rear and sides: 5 feet Not specified*
North, south and
east property lines

Minimum Open 5% of gross area Not specified*
Space
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking 1 space per two 32 spaces provided (Square
resident/patient beds footage of office space not
(Community Residence provided)*
Center/Nursing Home) and 1
space per 300 square feet
(Office).
*Site plan revision or variance required.

Page 381
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 1.11 acres located approximately 970 feet north of the
northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue from R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) for a
community residence center, subject to a use permit process. Community
residence centers are permitted subject to a use permit in multifamily zoning
districts, including the R-3 zoning district, while permitted by right in some of the
commercial zoning districts. The site is presently vacant and undeveloped.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The request for R-3
(Multifamily Residence
District) zoning is located in
an area surrounded by single-
family zoning, although
adjacent to non-residential
uses. These non-residential
uses include a vacant
lot/wash area (north), church
(south), State Route 51 (west)
and Phoenix Indian Bend
Wash Park (east).

Multifamily zoning is located
near the northeast corner of
34th Street and Sweetwater
Avenue, developed with a
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development
single-family detached use. Department
Multifamily uses developed under the R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
zoning exists along 34th Street, less than 500 feet south of the subject site.

Access to the subject site is along 34th Street, a local street, which terminates at
the subject site. Overall, the general area has been developed with a variety of
residential uses, including single-family and multifamily, plus non-residential
uses. The proposed multifamily zoning is consistent with existing uses in the
area and will allow a new residential use to be established on the subject site
without impacting nearby residential properties due to its geographic location.

Page 382
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Parks/Open Space -Publicly Owned. The
proposal is not consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use map
designation, as the R-3 zoning district is consistent with Commercial and
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre Land Use Map designations.
However, a Minor General Plan Amendment is not required since the site is
under 10 acres in size.

North and east of the site has been designated as Parks/Open-Space-Publicly
Owned and a small portion as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. South
of the site has been designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
and west of the site has been designated as Transportation along State Route
51.

General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department

Page 383
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The development proposes a
community residence center,
subject to a use permit, on
the subject site. The
conceptual site plan shows a
single two-story building
located on the north-half of
the site, with vehicular
surface parking spaces
located on the south-half of
the site. An open space area
is proposed west of the
building, within proximity to
the eastern property line
bordering Indian Bend Wash.

Access to the site is proposed
exclusively along 34th Street,
envisioned to terminate as a
cul-de-sac to be constructed
as part of this development. A
sidewalk connecting to
Sweetwater Avenue presently
exists along most of 34th
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Another Look LLC.
Street, located either on the
west or east side of the street.
As mentioned previously in this report, no residential uses are adjacent to the
subject site. However, staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 which would limit the
location of buildings on the site away from an adjacent single-family zoned
property to the south, shall this property develop in the future as single-family.
Stipulation No. 1 would require a minimum 50-foot building setback from the
south property line, exclusive of carports or perimeter walls. A church is adjacent
to the site along the south property line, while a freeway and wash bound the
remaining property lines.

General conformance to the conceptual site plan is not proposed since zoning
variances may be requested by the applicant following the rezoning process if
site plan modifications cannot be made. Furthermore, the subject parcel is non-
symmetrical in shape and constrained by topographical features such as a wash
and freeway, thus additional flexibility during the develop review phase for the

Page 384
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

site could be beneficial. In addition, a community residence center is subject to a
use permit within the R-3 multifamily district. Use permits and variances undergo
a separate review process, subject to the Zoning Adjustment hearing process.

5. Elevations
The conceptual building elevations depict various architectural features such as
pitched roofs, windows, a covered patio and four-sided architecture. Building
materials referenced in the conceptual elevations include brick façade, cement
board siding, stucco and tile roofs. The conceptual building elevations proposed
for the site depict a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet to the mid-point of
the roof. Stipulation No. 2 recommends limiting the maximum height of buildings
on site to two stories and 30 feet to help keep the building on this site consistent
with adjacent R1-6 zoning district permitted height standards.

Staff is recommending a stipulation to require building elevations to incorporate a
variety of colors, materials and textural changes. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 3. Stipulation No. 4 also recommends that all building elevations contain
architectural embellishments and detailing, including pitched roofs, and/or
overhang canopies. Stipulation Nos. 3 and 4 will ensure that the site provides
aesthetically pleasing building materials and architecture across from a public
park and adjacent to a single-family zoned property.

A conformance to the conceptual building elevations is not currently proposed as
the building elevations show no colors and since zoning variances may be
requested following the rezoning process if site plan modifications cannot be
made, which could result in a change of layout for the building. However, the
stipulations listed above will help ensure that the proposed buildings will
incorporate pleasing aesthetics, materials that will withstand the weather for
many years and architectural features consistent with those found in the adjacent
residential areas.

Page 385
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

Conceptual Building Elevations, Source: Another Look LLC.

6. Landscaping, Walls and Walkways
The development features one usable open space area, northeast of the site at
approximately 12,100 square feet in area. This open space area is oriented
towards Indian Bend Wash, east of the site, and will serve to enhance the
viewscape from the wash area towards this adjacent bank. Furthermore, the R-3
zoning district requires that a minimum of 100 square feet of open space is
provided per bed in community residence centers.

In order to buffer the site from adjacent uses, increase shade and to provide an
enhanced landscape treatment along Indian Bend Wash, Stipulation No. 5
recommends enhanced plantings within landscape setbacks that include
minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
equivalent groupings and five 5-gallon shrubs per tree.

Page 386
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

Stipulation No. 6 recommends that
where a landscaped median is
provided within the ingress or
egress to the site, a landscaped
accent area shall be provided. This
will help to provide a visually unique
character and provide seasonal
interest along the streetscape.

Stipulation No. 7 recommends
several wall enhancements to be
aesthetically pleasing along the
street frontage and Indian Bend
Wash. The wall enhancements
include:

x Finished appearance with
textural differences where
visible from public streets;
x Combination of view fencing
and solid walls along Indian
Bend Wash.

Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9 Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Another Look LLC.
with Planning and Development Department
recommend several pedestrian annotations
enhancements to promote walking
and safety. The enhancements
include:

x Pedestrian pathways that
connect all buildings,
community amenity areas
and public sidewalks via the
most direct route;
x Pathways constructed of
decorative pathways that
visually contrast with parking
and drive aisle surfaces.

Page 387
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

STUDIES AND POLICIES

7. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Staff is recommending several stipulations designed to
provide trees and enhance shade within the development. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 10 to require a minimum of 75 percent shade within pedestrian
walkways, including the public sidewalk, to encourage walking by employees and
residents by providing thermal comfort.

8. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. This development will help to
pedestrianize the immediate street frontages by shading sidewalks adjacent to
the development, addressed in Stipulation No. 10. A minimum of two inverted u-
bicycle racks located near the main building entrance are recommended in
Stipulation No. 11.

9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure.
Bicycle lanes have been designed within the Sweetwater Avenue corridor; thus
Stipulation No. 11 recommends a minimum of two inverted u-bicycle racks
located near the main building entrance to promote the use of bicycling as a
means of transportations for future employees and residents of this facility.

10. Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan
The Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan was approved in 1991 to help
address the impacts of the State Route 51 (SR-51) freeway on adjacent
neighborhoods. The plan proposes ways to maximize the compatibility of the
freeway with adjacent and nearby land uses, while encouraging neighborhood
cohesion and stability. The subject site is located within Segment 5 of this
Specific Plan and was envisioned as a park within the existing and proposed
land use map, part of a larger linear park along Indian Bend Wash. Thus, the
proposal is consistent with the Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan existing
and proposed land use map. However, the existing freeway noise mitigation wall
and landscape area within the SR-51 freeway portion, in addition to landscape
setbacks adjacent to the SR-51, will help mitigate any potential impacts to this
new proposed development.

Page 388
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

11. State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy
The State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy was approved in 2011 to
help establish and protect this scenic corridor from outdoor uses, such as
outdoor storage and off-premise advertising structures, along portions of the
State Route 51 and Loop 101. The requested R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) zoning does not allow outdoor uses such as outdoor storage or off-
premise advertising structures, thus the proposal is consistent with this policy
document and will promote the vision for this scenic corridor.

12. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The applicant materials indicate that recycling services
will be part of the development.

13. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a
more sustainable fashion.

Although the proposed community residence center is not a traditional residential
use, it will allow for disabled residents to be housed and cared for at this location,
which proposes up to 50 beds as part of this facility. Shall the proposed use not
be developed on this site, the proposed zoning would permit a variety of
residential uses including single-family and multifamily.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. As of the writing of this report, staff had not received any letters in support or
opposition to this rezoning application. Staff did receive a letter from an individual

Page 389
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

in the area that listed concerns regarding the manner in which the virtual
neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 International Fire
Code with Phoenix Amendments, and the facility will require fire sprinklers and
an alarm system. Further, the Department commented that they do not know the
water supply at this site and noted that additional water supply may be required
to meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.

16. The Floodplain Management division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that a sliver of the parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) called Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) dated December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or
construction encroachment including fill within the sliver, then no floodplain
requirements will be required. If an encroachment does occur, Stipulation No. 14
addresses these floodplain requirements.

17. The Public Transit Department provided comments expressing the importance of
direct, clearly defined accessible, and well shaded pedestrian pathways on the
site. Shaded pathways should connect the public sidewalks with site amenities
and gathering areas. Lastly, that alternative pavement material be used where
pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles. These comments were addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 8, 9 and 10.

18. The Pedestrian Safety Coordinator with the Street Transportation Department
commented that pedestrian accesses to the site from the public sidewalk should
be attractive plus inviting, in addition to providing a shaded plus illuminated
pedestrian circulation on the site. Furthermore, that alternative paving material
be used to delineate pedestrian walkways where vehicle conflicts exist. Also, that
the public sidewalk be detached to help provide shade and thick vegetation to
discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. Lastly, that pedestrian walkways are
marked where these are located in parking areas, and that buildings with varied
setbacks are located near sidewalks to encourage walking plus create visual
vibrancy.

Stipulation No. 6 requires a landscaped accent area where a median is provided
along the main entrance to the site to create visual vibrancy. Stipulation No. 8
addresses pedestrian pathways that connect the site to adjacent sidewalks,
while Stipulation No. 9 requires decorative pavement to be utilized in order to
visually contrast the parking surfaces. Lastly, Stipulation No. 10 requires the

Page 390
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

shading of pedestrian walkways to encourage walking. Variation in building
setbacks was not stipulated due to the unique shape of the parcel, which
constraints development on the site.

19. The Street Transportation Department requires the construction of a cul-de-sac
at the terminus of 34th Street. Furthermore, that the developer construct all
streets within and adjacent to the development with all required elements. These
are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12 and 13.

OTHER
20. The site is not located in an area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. In
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 15.

21. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.

Findings

1. This proposed development provides a new non-traditional housing option that is
consistent with surrounding developments and serves a need in the community
for disabled individuals.

2. The development, as stipulated, will maintain an appropriate scale to ensure that
it remains compatible with the area.

3. This development proposes to develop an asymmetrical parcel that is bounded
by a wash and freeway with a use that is consistent with the goals of the State
Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy plan.

Stipulations

1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive of carports and
perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where adjacent to R1-6 zoning.

2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.

Page 391
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

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

4. All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location,
pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy shade
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 consistent with a pedestrian environment.

6. Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the site, a
landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with drought-tolerant plant
materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live cover, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished appearance
compatible with primary structures that includes material and textural differences,
such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or
stamped designs.

b. A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height, and wrought iron
view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along the eastern property lines
where open space is adjacent to the drainage channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash)
east of the site.

8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting all building
entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public sidewalks utilizing the
minimum possible distance and providing the most direct route, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

Page 392
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed of decorative
pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a minimum of
75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be provided, located
near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix K,
“Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus of 34th
Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

14. A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE
Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) revised December
22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or construction encroachment including fill
within this portion of the site in the SFHA, then no floodplain requirements will be required.
If encroachment does occur, then the following requirements must be met, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard area boundary
limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities and surrounding
properties have been considered, following the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but 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 needs to be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of Public Works Department for review and approval of
Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.

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.

Page 393
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021

Writer
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
April 20, 2021

Team Leader
Samantha Keating

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped September 17, 2020 (1 page)
Conceptual Elevations date stamped September 17, 2020 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (1 page)

Page 394
C-2
34T H
C-2 *
Z-SP-7-84
RD
PL I O
E S ID
PR
33R D
R-5
DELCO A DR

36TH PL

36TH STREET
ST SUTTON DR

35T H P
R-5 *
Z-SP-28-69
L

35TH ST
C-O
EMILE ZOLA AVE

32ND ST
WILLOW AVE
R1-6
36TH ST
ANDORA DR £
¤
Squaw
R-2* Peak Freeway
R1-6 SP
Z-SP-13-87
Z-129-96 Specific Plan

PERSHING AVE
SURREY AV E

33RD PL 34TH ST
ROVEEN AVE
R1-6
Z-67-97

CAPTAIN DREYFUS AVE R-2 PRD *
Z-164-04

SWEETWATER AVE

I
DEER VALLEY DR

SR 101
Z-49-20
UNION HILLS DR
Miles

A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07 GREENWAY RD

PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD

SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU

16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S

TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Matt Ihms
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.11 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/09/2020
Z-49-20 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.11 Acres QS 32-35 L-10 TO: R-3 ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 6 7
R-3 16 19

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 395
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-49-20.mxd
C-2
34T H
C-2 *
Z-SP-7-84
RD
PL I O
E S ID
PR
33R D
R-5
DELCO A DR

36TH PL

36TH STREET
ST SUTTON DR

35T H P
R-5 *
Z-SP-28-69
L

35TH ST
C-O
EMILE ZOLA AVE

32ND ST
WILLOW AVE
R1-6
36TH ST
ANDORA DR £
¤
Squaw
R-2* Peak Freeway
R1-6 SP
Z-SP-13-87
Z-129-96 Specific Plan

PERSHING AVE
SURREY AV E

33RD PL 34TH ST
ROVEEN AVE
R1-6
Z-67-97

CAPTAIN DREYFUS AVE R-2 PRD *
Z-164-04

SWEETWATER AVE Maricopa County Assessor's Office

I
DEER VALLEY DR

SR 101
Z-49-20
UNION HILLS DR
Miles

A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07 GREENWAY RD

PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD

SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU

16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S

TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Matt Ihms
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.11 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/09/2020
Z-49-20 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.11 Acres QS 32-35 L-10 TO: R-3 ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 6 7
R-3 16 19

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 396
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-49-20.mxd
Page 397
Page 398
Page 399
From: Emad Zaki
To: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Cc: David O Simmons; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Case Z-49-20-3
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:39:10 PM
Attachments: Rezoning Letter .pdf

Dear Mr. Ihms,

I am attaching a copy of the letter you mailed regarding the above-mentioned case. I have few
concerns that I would like to address:

1. The meeting is scheduled on a work day at 9AM, this is going to prevent a lot of
the neighborhood members from attending. My experience with these meeting that it is
usually scheduled after regular work hours.
2. The way this is set does not give the members an access to the meeting until they
request it from you, this is another concern as members should have a direct link to
access the meeting same as in-person meeting works.

Please consider the above concerns as it interferes with the main purpose of this meetings to
allow the neighbors to voice their opinions and address their concerns. It would be great if you
can reschedule this meeting for another day after 5PM and to have a direct link for anyone
who would like to attend.
Please also let me know if you can provide me with the mailing list to make sure that our
neighbors all got the letter, and if they share the same concerns we have.

Best Regards,

Emad Zaki

Page 400
Attachment C

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-49-20-3

Date of VPC Meeting May 3, 2021
Request From R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
Request To R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Proposed Use Community Residence Center
Location Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of
34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation.
VPC Vote 11-6 with committee members Cantor, Hall, Maggiore,
Mortensen, Popovic, Severs, Stewart, Ward, Wise,
Gubser and Lesher in favor. Committee members
Balderrama, Cashman, Gerst, Goodhue, Mazza and
Ulibarri not in favor.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed over time, the General Plan Land Use
Map designation and character of the surrounding area. Mr. Simmons went over
conceptual site plans and elevations as well as proposed standards. Further, Mr.
Simmons covered a series of stipulations tied to the case.

Chairman Robert Gubser asked staff is the stipulations included a general
conformance stip to the site plans or elevations.

Mr. Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola, staff, shared that there are no general
conformance stipulations due to the required zoning adjustments the applicant
will need to apply for after this case is approved.

Ms. Larisa Balderrama stated that he has concerns with this use being located
in such close proximity to single-family homes.

Mr. Paul Severs asked how many residences will be allowed to be housed in
this facility.

Mr. Bojórquez Gaxiola stated that the applicant could speak to this during his
presentation.

Applicant Presentation:

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 401
Mr. Thomas Fedzin, applicant, provide a thorough background on his business
model. He shared that this house will provide housing for elder care and assisted
living. He emphasized that this is not a sober living home. He stated that up to 40
residence could reside int eh home at one time and the square footage of the
structure is about 14k square feet in size.

Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if this were a mix of independent and assisted living.

Mr. Fedzin shared that it could be a mix.

Mr. Goodhue asked why the two groups would be separated.

Mr. Fedzin shared that those uses fall under the same license. The separation
was for staffing purposes as each staff set has area of expertise.

Ms. Toby Gerst asked Mr. Fedzin to please define “wellness center”, as
referenced in the applicant’s presentation. She also asked if there were a limited
number of beds for Medicade patience.

Mr. Fedzin defined “wellness center” and expanded on the number of beds that
would be allowed under Medicade.

Vicechair Joe Lesher shared that he had looked up Solace Hospice and they
have outstanding reviews. He also stated that the existing facilities on the
website look very nice.

Mr. Alex Popovic asked if his company has entered into a Public Private
Partnership with the City of Phoenix for this proposal.

Mr. Fedzin stated that no Public Private Partnership has been discussed with the

Mr. Popovic asked the applicant if he had developed in other areas or if this was
his first venture in this industry.

Mr. Fedzin shared that yes, he has built from the ground up in Surprise,
Goodyear and Peoria.

Mr. Popovic asked is he has sold them or if he retains them and manages them.
He also asked if there were 3rd party operators.

Mr. Fedzin explained that they retain them. He stated that they build a good staff
and intern provide a high quality product.

Mr. Popovic asked what community outreach was done prior to coming to this
committee tonight.

Mr. Fedzin shared that they had a neighborhood meeting and send out
neighborhood notification letters.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 402
Ms. Jennifer Hall asked if there were any persons present voicing opposition at
the neighborhood meeting.

Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that one letter in opposition was received
prior to the staff report being posted. He also shared a citizen participation report
was submitted as part of the rezoning packet requirements. He shared that the
applicant met all neighborhood meeting and notification requirements.

Ms. Balderrama stated that if this request were to pass, all community residence
center product types would be allowed on this site. She asked how many
employees will work there.

Mr. Fedzin shared that the staff size will be around 6-8 full time employees
working regular business hours.

Mr. Goodhue stated that he has concerns with the amount of freedom this
proposed use could encompass. I stated that if it were limited to assisted living,
he could be supportive.

Ms. Hall shared that she too has concerns with the flexibility of the use.

Mr. Wise shared that he does not believe this use will have a negative impact on
the area.

Ms. Jennifer Maggiore asked what the results of the citizen participation report
was.

Mr. Bojórquez Gaxiola shared the results of the report.

Mr. Eric Cashman understands that there is a great need for these facilities in
our area. However, he stated that he knows no one wants sober living facilities in
their neighborhoods.

Ms. Louisa Ward shared that he has conducted a site visit prior to the meeting.
She has concerns about the narrow roadway leading to the site.

Mr. Cashman asked if vehicles weighing in excess of 3 tons were allowed to
drive down the narrow, unimproved roadway.

Mr. Simmons shared that the applicant is stipulated to improving the cul-de-sac
as part of the approval and shared that this is public right of way, so there is no
restriction that he is aware of.

MOTION:
Mr. Alex Popovic made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Case No.
Z-49-20-3, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Ben Stewart seconded the motion.
VOTE:

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 403
11-6 with committee members Cantor, Hall, Maggiore, Mortensen, Popovic,
Severs, Stewart, Ward, Wise, Gubser and Lesher in favor. Committee members
Balderrama, Cashman, Gerst, Goodhue, Mazza and Ulibarri not in favor.

Staff Comments:

None

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 404
Attachment D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021

ITEM NO: 11
DISTRICT NO.: 3
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-49-20-3
Location: Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street
and Sweetwater Avenue
From: R1-6
To: R-3
Acreage: 1.11
Proposal: Community Residence Center
Applicant: Matt Ihms
Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Representative: Matt Ihms

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 5/3/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-6.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-49-20-3, per the
Paradise Valley Village Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation, as
read into the record.

Maker: Busching
Second: Perez
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. This proposed development provides a new non-traditional housing option that
is consistent with surrounding developments and serves a need in the
community for disabled individuals.

2. The development, as stipulated, will maintain an appropriate scale to ensure
that it remains compatible with the area.

Page 405
3. This development proposes to develop an asymmetrical parcel that is bounded
by a wash and freeway with a use that is consistent with the goals of the State
Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy plan.

Stipulations:

1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive
of carports and perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where
adjacent to R1-6 zoning.

2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.

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

4. All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large
canopy shade 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
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

6. Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the
site, a landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with
drought-tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live
cover, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished
appearance compatible with primary structures that includes material
and textural differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a
decorative element, such as tile or stamped designs.

b. A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height,
and wrought iron view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along
the eastern property lines where open space is adjacent to the
drainage channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash) east of the site.

8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting
all building entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public

Page 406
sidewalks utilizing the minimum possible distance and providing the most
direct route, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed
of decorative pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and
drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a
minimum of 75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be
provided, located near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall
adhere to Appendix K, “Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan, and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the
terminus of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

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

14. A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
called Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) revised December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or
construction encroachment including fill within this portion of the site in the
SFHA, then no floodplain requirements will be required. If encroachment does
occur, then the following requirements must be met, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard
area boundary limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed
facilities and surrounding properties have been considered, following
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR
Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but 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 needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading
Permit.

15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-

Page 407
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

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

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.

Page 408
Attachment E

CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: 7/01/2021,
at 10:00 a.m.

APPLICATION NO/ Z-49-20-3 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Approximately 970 opposition x applicant
feet north of the
northeast corner of
34th Street and
Sweetwater Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85013 PC 6/03/2021 13221 North 34th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85032

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 7/01/2021 Mina Aziz/Archangel Michael Coptic
HEARING (at 10:00 a.m.) Orthodox Church
480-562-1619
frarsenyaziz@gmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Community concerned about openness of R-3 Zoning and process undertaken by the
Applicant to not address concerns. Applicant history of selling Community Centers.

RECEIVED BY: Tricia Gomes RECEIVED ON: 6/10/2021

Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Ra’Desha Williams
Stephanie Vasquez
David Urbinato
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Village Planner
Samantha Keating
Paul M. Li
GIS
Applicant

Page 409
Page 410
Page 411
166-52-120

166-52-146
166-52-147

166-

52- 1

166-
166- 52- 1
52- 1 166-
52- 1
166- 94

52- 1
166- 52-150

166-52-151

166-03-003E

166-03-003F

166-03-003D

166-03-003B
166-03-004E
£
¤ SR51 R M P 166-03-004D

166-03-006

34TH ST 166-03-005A

Legend
6-
Zoning Petition Area 31
-2
166-03-233 166-03-011C
Proposed Amendment Area
166-03-257
166-03-228 166-03-232
166-03-230
166-03-227 # of Lots/Tracts/Condos:1/7 = 14%
166-03-234
Lots/Tracts/Condos 29
-2 % Area = 0.66ac./5.58ac. = 12%
3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED
6 -
Signed Petition 16
166-03-256

Petition Verification Map
I 0 45 90 Feet
Map Page
prepared
for Z-49-20-3
412 by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 6/11/2021
Attachment F
David O Simmons

From: mark atia
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 5:45 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-49-20-3 comment

Hi Mr. Simmons,

How can I submit a comment for item z-49-20-3? We missed the deadline for tonight's meeting but I would like to
submit a comment for the council to read before the June 1st vote.

My comment: "I would like to not have the rezoning approved due to all properties being single family residences. This
will increase traffic in the neighborhood and especially on 34th street making it less safe for the community. It also will
back up to the wash, where there is a local park, making it less of a family oriented park. I as k that you don't approve the
rezoning because of this."

Thank you,
Mark Atia

Sent from my mobile phone

Page 413
From: Bishoy Soliman
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Fw: Z-49-20-3 comment
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 8:41:49 AM
Attachments: Three Quarters Vote Petition (379) - Revised 7-31-17 (1).pdf
image001.png
image001.png

Good Morning Enrique,

I am a board member of the church adjacent to this property (Z-49-20-3). Unfortunately, we did not
register in time to speak at the May 3rd meeting but there were many things I would have like to have
said opposing this rezoning application and many times I would have like to have answered some of the
questions that the committee had.

On May 9th, our priest explained how the meeting went to the congregation and announced that we
would be putting together a petition opposing the rezoning of this land. Most of the congregation seemed
like they were against this, but we did not have the petition ready for anyone to sign.

The next week, we found out that someone in the congregation had COVID and anyone in contact with
this person was requested to get tested or just stay home. Because of this COVID scare, the next two
weeks had very low attendance and we were only able to collect 18 signatures.

With this needing to be submitted ideally before May 27th, is it possible to distribute this petition
electronically and gather electronic signatures?

These are the reasons we oppose of the rezoning that are mentioned in the petition:

·        Due to the wide variety of dwellings under R-3 zoning, we are very
concerned about the possibility of this land turning into something other than an assisted living facility,
(i.e. Halfway House) which could potentially become a threat to neighboring properties and also to
children at the public park across the wash from this property.

·        The applicant has developed several assisted living facilities, none
of which are currently owned by the applicant. The applicant has sold every assisted living facility he has
developed, which gives us, and we hope give the committee, very little confidence that he will keep this
property and operate it as an assisted living facility.

·        Approving this application with the possibility of this facility
becoming a halfway house or any type of group home would put owners of the neighboring community at
a significant disadvantage when selling their properties. Meanwhile, this applicant will reap the benefits of
having purchased single family residential land and selling it at a much higher value as a result of the
rezoning.

I will also be submitting my own letter bringing up these reasons as well as a few others on why I do not
think this rezoning will benefit the community without hurting others nearby.

Thank you,
Bishoy Soliman

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: mark atia
To: Father Arseny Aziz ; Mira keddis ; Bishoy
Soliman ; Bishoy Soliman
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 10:39:47 AM MST
Subject: Fwd: Z-49-20-3 comment

Page 414
Page 415
Page 416
Page 417
Page 418
Page 419
From: J.J. Téllez
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:34 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Subject: Comment for Rezoning Case, Item 11, Application # Z-49-20-3

Hello,

I'd like to bring to the Planning Commission's attention that the parcel owner applying for rezoning has done the bare
minimum to listen to the community and neighbor's concerns about the proposed development. The community
meeting was held back in February during working hours and only one community member attended. Meager
attendance and emailed concerns on 2/22 by Emad Zaki (below) should have signaled to the developer more needed to
be done. Additionally, the 34th Street Enclave community was not invited or notified nor any neighbors across the wash,
surrounding the park.

Rezoning opens several possibilities of 'community centers' that could evolve from developers' stated intentions of
hospice care to other more profitable operations such as sober‐living facilities within walking distance of a community
park and single family homes.

Lastly, peer‐reviewed research shows group homes have a negative impact on surrounding homes property values.
Article below:

https://doi.org/10.2307/3146956 [doi.org]
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1208/ML12088A314.pdf [nrc.gov]

Regards,
JJ Tellez,
3414 E Captain Dreyfus Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85032

From: Emad Zaki
To: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Cc: David O Simmons; Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Subject: Case Z‐49‐20‐3
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:39:10 PM
Attachments: Rezoning Letter .pdf
Dear Mr. Ihms,
I am attaching a copy of the letter you mailed regarding the above‐mentioned case. I have few
concerns that I would like to address:
1. The meeting is scheduled on a work day at 9AM, this is going to prevent a lot of
the neighborhood members from attending. My experience with these meeting that it is
usually scheduled after regular work hours.
2. The way this is set does not give the members an access to the meeting until they
request it from you, this is another concern as members should have a direct link to
access the meeting same as in‐person meeting works.
Please consider the above concerns as it interferes with the main purpose of this meetings to
allow the neighbors to voice their opinions and address their concerns. It would be great if you
can reschedule this meeting for another day after 5PM and to have a direct link for anyone
who would like to attend.
Please also let me know if you can provide me with the mailing list to make sure that our
neighbors all got the letter, and if they share the same concerns we have.

Best Regards,
Emad Zaki Page 420

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Meeting City Council Formal Meeting-8/25/2021 complete

1. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on April 15, 2020

Item text

Supporting documents

2. ¶ Boards and Commissions

Item text

Supporting documents

3. ¶ Liquor License - Sonoran Spirits

Item text

Supporting documents

4. ¶ Liquor License - Pad Thai Cafe

Item text

Supporting documents

5. ¶ Liquor License - Fat Willy's Family Sports Grill

Item text

Supporting documents

6. ¶ Liquor License - Bad Habits #601

Item text

Supporting documents

7. ¶ Liquor License - Christopher J. Lapka American Legion Post 105

Item text

Supporting documents

8. ¶ Liquor License - Furious Brewing Company

Item text

Supporting documents

9. ¶ Liquor License - Homewood Suites Hotel

Item text

Supporting documents

10. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Parish

Item text

Supporting documents

11. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Parish

Item text

Supporting documents

12. ¶ Liquor License - Barba Roja Restaurant and Bar

Item text

Supporting documents

13. ¶ Liquor License - The Coronado Phx

Item text

Supporting documents

14. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Hermandad del Senor de los Milagros (Mesa,

Item text

Supporting documents

15. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Veterans Transportation

Item text

Supporting documents

16. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Veterans Transportation

Item text

Supporting documents

17. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Greek Orthodox Church - Holy Trinity

Item text

Supporting documents

18. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - Keystone Montessori Charter School, Inc.

Item text

Supporting documents

19. ¶ Liquor License - Special Event - St. Joseph Maronite Catholic Church

Item text

Supporting documents

20. ¶ Liquor License - Bluewater Grill

Item text

Supporting documents

21. ¶ Liquor License - Daily Stop

Item text

Supporting documents

22. ¶ Liquor License - Native Grill & Wings

Item text

Supporting documents

23. ¶ Liquor License - The Neighborly .St Urban

Item text

Supporting documents

24. ¶ Liquor License - Sushi 32

Item text

Supporting documents

25. ¶ Liquor License - Found: RE Phoenix

Item text

Supporting documents

26. ¶ Liquor License - Found: RE Phoenix

Item text

Supporting documents

27. ¶ Liquor License - Northwest Drip Coffee