Meeting Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee-12/1/2021 complete
2021-12-01 · Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee
Items: 78
Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee
Synced: 2026-05-28 03:37 AZ
Item text
Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
Page 11
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: December 1, 2021
From: Mayor Kate Gallego
Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES
The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:
Human Relations Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Andrew Gordon
Mr. Gordon is an attorney at Coppersmith Brockelman and a resident of District 6. He
fills a vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2023.
Human Services Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Meka Allen
Meka Allen is the Director of Social Work at the Fresh Start Women’s Foundation and a
resident of District 4. She fills a Category III vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2023.
Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force
I and Councilman Jim Waring recommend the following for appointment:
Ezequiel Dominguez
Mr. Dominguez is the Human Trafficking Program Lead at Chicanos Por La Causa.
Zora Manjencich
Ms. Manjencich is a Special Projects Coordinator at the Office of the Attorney General.
She replaces Jason Isaak.
Page 12
Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Mitch Menchaca
Mitch Menchaca is the Director of the City of Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture and will
serve in the ex-officio position.
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Police Pension Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Mark Schweikert
Mr. Schweikert was elected to the PSPRS Local Police Pension Board to serve as a
representative of sworn Police Department employees and is a Lieutenant with the City
of Phoenix Police Department. He fills a vacancy created by the resignation of Sergeant
Darren Wunderle and will fulfill a partial term to expire June 30, 2024.
Page 13
Report
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
Page 11
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: December 1, 2021
From: Mayor Kate Gallego
Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES
The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:
Human Relations Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Andrew Gordon
Mr. Gordon is an attorney at Coppersmith Brockelman and a resident of District 6. He
fills a vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2023.
Human Services Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Meka Allen
Meka Allen is the Director of Social Work at the Fresh Start Women’s Foundation and a
resident of District 4. She fills a Category III vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2023.
Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force
I and Councilman Jim Waring recommend the following for appointment:
Ezequiel Dominguez
Mr. Dominguez is the Human Trafficking Program Lead at Chicanos Por La Causa.
Zora Manjencich
Ms. Manjencich is a Special Projects Coordinator at the Office of the Attorney General.
She replaces Jason Isaak.
Page 12
Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission
I recommend the following for appointment:
Mitch Menchaca
Mitch Menchaca is the Director of the City of Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture and will
serve in the ex-officio position.
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Police Pension Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Mark Schweikert
Mr. Schweikert was elected to the PSPRS Local Police Pension Board to serve as a
representative of sworn Police Department employees and is a Lieutenant with the City
of Phoenix Police Department. He fills a vacancy created by the resignation of Sergeant
Darren Wunderle and will fulfill a partial term to expire June 30, 2024.
Page 13
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Reappointment of Phoenix Municipal Court Judges
This item requests to reappoint Judge Monyette Nyquist, Judge Thomas Parascandola
and Judge Ana Maribet Sanchez as Judges of the Phoenix Municipal Court, each for a
four-year term expiring Dec. 19, 2025; and Judge Patricia George as a Judge of the
Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term expiring Jan. 1, 2026; and Judge
Marianne Bayardi, Judge Hercules Dellas and Judge Frankie Jones as Judges of the
Phoenix Municipal Court, each for a four-year term expiring Jan. 17, 2026.
Summary
On Oct. 29, 2021, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended to the Public
Safety and Justice Subcommittee the reappointment of these judges.
On Nov. 10, 2021, the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee unanimously
recommended their reappointments as judges of the Phoenix Municipal Court.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the City Council
Office.
Page 14
Report
This item requests to reappoint Judge Monyette Nyquist, Judge Thomas Parascandola
and Judge Ana Maribet Sanchez as Judges of the Phoenix Municipal Court, each for a
four-year term expiring Dec. 19, 2025; and Judge Patricia George as a Judge of the
Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term expiring Jan. 1, 2026; and Judge
Marianne Bayardi, Judge Hercules Dellas and Judge Frankie Jones as Judges of the
Phoenix Municipal Court, each for a four-year term expiring Jan. 17, 2026.
Summary
On Oct. 29, 2021, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended to the Public
Safety and Justice Subcommittee the reappointment of these judges.
On Nov. 10, 2021, the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee unanimously
recommended their reappointments as judges of the Phoenix Municipal Court.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the City Council
Office.
Page 14
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Gallery Bar Phoenix
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 164221.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5355 E. High St., Unit 121
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 5, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 15
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 will train all of our employees in responsible liquor service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I would like to offer my patrons the choice of having an adult beverage while enjoying
a bite to eat and great art.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Gallery Bar Phoenix
Liquor License Map - Gallery Bar Phoenix
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 16
Liquor License Data: GALLERY BAR PHOENIX
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 9 8
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2
Restaurant 12 29 24
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 32.32 24.30
Violent Crimes 9.06 1.85 1.38
*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 57 1
Total Violations 94 1
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %
6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 17
Liquor License Map: GALLERY BAR PHOENIX
5355 E HIGH ST
Ü
Date: 10/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 18
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 164221.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5355 E. High St., Unit 121
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 5, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 15
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 will train all of our employees in responsible liquor service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I would like to offer my patrons the choice of having an adult beverage while enjoying
a bite to eat and great art.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Gallery Bar Phoenix
Liquor License Map - Gallery Bar Phoenix
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 16
Liquor License Data: GALLERY BAR PHOENIX
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 9 8
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2
Restaurant 12 29 24
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 32.32 24.30
Violent Crimes 9.06 1.85 1.38
*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 57 1
Total Violations 94 1
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %
6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 17
Liquor License Map: GALLERY BAR PHOENIX
5355 E HIGH ST
Ü
Date: 10/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 18
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Patio 54 Fusion Kitchen
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163372.
Summary
Applicant
Noah Pak, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant with Growler Privileges
Location
5415 E. High St., Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
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 outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption. A Use
Permit hearing has been scheduled.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 3, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 19
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'm a responsible citizen with a college degree who understands how to operate a
business and understands the responsibility that comes along with owning a liquor
license.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Our restaurant is located in the area where there are many other restaurants serving
alcohol and entertainments. I will add an another concept to an area for the public to
come and enjoy with their families.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Patio 54 Fusion Kitchen
Liquor License Map - Patio 54 Fusion Kitchen
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Liquor License Data: PATIO 54 FUSION KITCHEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 9 7
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2
Restaurant 12 29 23
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 32.59 24.20
Violent Crimes 9.06 2.01 1.38
*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 57 1
Total Violations 94 1
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %
6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 21
Liquor License Map: PATIO 54 FUSION KITCHEN
5415 E HIGH ST
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 22
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163372.
Summary
Applicant
Noah Pak, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant with Growler Privileges
Location
5415 E. High St., Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
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 outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption. A Use
Permit hearing has been scheduled.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 3, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 19
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'm a responsible citizen with a college degree who understands how to operate a
business and understands the responsibility that comes along with owning a liquor
license.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Our restaurant is located in the area where there are many other restaurants serving
alcohol and entertainments. I will add an another concept to an area for the public to
come and enjoy with their families.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Patio 54 Fusion Kitchen
Liquor License Map - Patio 54 Fusion Kitchen
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Liquor License Data: PATIO 54 FUSION KITCHEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 9 7
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2
Restaurant 12 29 23
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 32.59 24.20
Violent Crimes 9.06 2.01 1.38
*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 57 1
Total Violations 94 1
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %
6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 21
Liquor License Map: PATIO 54 FUSION KITCHEN
5415 E HIGH ST
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 22
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Down The Street
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 164214.
Summary
Applicant
Fouad Mikhael, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
11833 N. 19th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow package liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 5, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 23
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am assured to uphold the laws and regulations about beer and wine license. I have
never been involved in any criminal activity, no record of getting in trouble with law and
authorities.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood to buy alcohol.
The location will be convenient for the people in neighborhood who may not have
access to transportation. Adding the long time experience of the working in
convenience store while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be a safe,
secure and convenience place for the customers to purchase quality beer and wine.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Down The Street
Liquor License Map - Down The Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 24
Liquor License Data: DOWN THE STREET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 2 1
Liquor Store 9 5 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 75.37 101.91
Violent Crimes 9.21 16.77 21.54
*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 56 81
Total Violations 95 167
Page 25
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1036141 2505 91 % 10 % 4%
1036151 906 52 % 16 % 12 %
1036152 1546 25 % 22 % 32 %
1036153 2183 16 % 25 % 47 %
1039002 1483 36 % 13 % 10 %
1039003 1903 43 % 0% 22 %
1044011 2363 68 % 12 % 12 %
1044013 684 2% 17 % 22 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 26
Liquor License Map: DOWN THE STREET
11833 N 19TH AVE
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 27
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 164214.
Summary
Applicant
Fouad Mikhael, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
11833 N. 19th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow package liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 5, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 23
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am assured to uphold the laws and regulations about beer and wine license. I have
never been involved in any criminal activity, no record of getting in trouble with law and
authorities.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood to buy alcohol.
The location will be convenient for the people in neighborhood who may not have
access to transportation. Adding the long time experience of the working in
convenience store while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be a safe,
secure and convenience place for the customers to purchase quality beer and wine.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Down The Street
Liquor License Map - Down The Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 24
Liquor License Data: DOWN THE STREET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 2 1
Liquor Store 9 5 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 75.37 101.91
Violent Crimes 9.21 16.77 21.54
*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 56 81
Total Violations 95 167
Page 25
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1036141 2505 91 % 10 % 4%
1036151 906 52 % 16 % 12 %
1036152 1546 25 % 22 % 32 %
1036153 2183 16 % 25 % 47 %
1039002 1483 36 % 13 % 10 %
1039003 1903 43 % 0% 22 %
1044011 2363 68 % 12 % 12 %
1044013 684 2% 17 % 22 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 26
Liquor License Map: DOWN THE STREET
11833 N 19TH AVE
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 27
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Classik Sports Bar & Lounge
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070243.
Summary
Applicant
Ashok Parmar, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
4228 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 6, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 28
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.
Club Classico Phoenix (Series 6)
5030 W. McDowell Road, Ste. 29-30, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 247
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 experience owning and operating a bar and have attended both basic and
management liquor law training. I will ensure my staff is trained in liquor law to prohibit
sales to underage and obviously intoxicated customers.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is an existing bar that has provided service to the nearby community for many
years. I am looking forward to creating a safe and friendly bar for the community with
my expertise in liquor law and business operations. I will comply with all city, state and
county laws and regulations to provide an enjoyable safe experience for my
customers.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Classik Sports Bar & Lounge
Liquor License Map - Classik Sports Bar & Lounge
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 29
Liquor License Data: CLASSIK SPORTS BAR & LOUNGE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 12 1
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2
Restaurant 12 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 89.41 100.31
Violent Crimes 9.06 18.60 19.95
*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 57 13
Total Violations 95 38
Page 30
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1125121 1518 14 % 36 % 22 %
1126022 1581 27 % 12 % 44 %
1126023 1658 88 % 0% 64 %
1126024 1959 57 % 2% 47 %
1146001 2149 47 % 16 % 45 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 31
Liquor License Map: CLASSIK SPORTS BAR & LOUNGE
4228 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 10/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 32
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070243.
Summary
Applicant
Ashok Parmar, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
4228 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 6, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 28
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.
Club Classico Phoenix (Series 6)
5030 W. McDowell Road, Ste. 29-30, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 247
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 experience owning and operating a bar and have attended both basic and
management liquor law training. I will ensure my staff is trained in liquor law to prohibit
sales to underage and obviously intoxicated customers.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is an existing bar that has provided service to the nearby community for many
years. I am looking forward to creating a safe and friendly bar for the community with
my expertise in liquor law and business operations. I will comply with all city, state and
county laws and regulations to provide an enjoyable safe experience for my
customers.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Classik Sports Bar & Lounge
Liquor License Map - Classik Sports Bar & Lounge
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 29
Liquor License Data: CLASSIK SPORTS BAR & LOUNGE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 12 1
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2
Restaurant 12 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 89.41 100.31
Violent Crimes 9.06 18.60 19.95
*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 57 13
Total Violations 95 38
Page 30
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1125121 1518 14 % 36 % 22 %
1126022 1581 27 % 12 % 44 %
1126023 1658 88 % 0% 64 %
1126024 1959 57 % 2% 47 %
1146001 2149 47 % 16 % 45 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 31
Liquor License Map: CLASSIK SPORTS BAR & LOUNGE
4228 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 10/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 32
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Monsoon Market
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163383.
Summary
Applicant
Michela Ricci, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
3508 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 3, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 33
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 owned my first small business (Early Bird Coffee) for over 4 years and have
maintained 100% compliance with all city departments, and state departments
including required permitting and routine inspections. In previous roles throughout my
career I have worked with multiple local, beloved breweries in Phoenix and have
experience with the invenotry management, regulations and the admin work required
to maintain a liqour license.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Monsoon Market will be a neighborhood market, within walking distance of multiple
established neighborhoods and will provide access to not only local beer and natural
wine but also fresh, local food items and pantry staples along with retail home items for
any occasion. Monsoon will provide a neighborhood market in an area where grocery
markets are solem and not easily accessible by foot to surrounding neighborhoods.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Monsoon Market
Liquor License Map - Monsoon Market
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 34
Liquor License Data: MONSOON MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 12 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 5 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 24 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 141.61 165.18
Violent Crimes 9.06 26.32 26.64
*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 57 136
Total Violations 94 258
Page 35
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1086012 1402 58 % 36 % 46 %
1105011 551 49 % 20 % 14 %
1105013 824 16 % 17 % 40 %
1105021 1057 13 % 34 % 30 %
1105022 1216 28 % 19 % 23 %
1106001 1027 29 % 17 % 34 %
1106003 801 27 % 29 % 49 %
1106004 1456 47 % 27 % 3%
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 36
Liquor License Map: MONSOON MARKET
3508 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 37
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163383.
Summary
Applicant
Michela Ricci, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
3508 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 3, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 33
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 owned my first small business (Early Bird Coffee) for over 4 years and have
maintained 100% compliance with all city departments, and state departments
including required permitting and routine inspections. In previous roles throughout my
career I have worked with multiple local, beloved breweries in Phoenix and have
experience with the invenotry management, regulations and the admin work required
to maintain a liqour license.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Monsoon Market will be a neighborhood market, within walking distance of multiple
established neighborhoods and will provide access to not only local beer and natural
wine but also fresh, local food items and pantry staples along with retail home items for
any occasion. Monsoon will provide a neighborhood market in an area where grocery
markets are solem and not easily accessible by foot to surrounding neighborhoods.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Monsoon Market
Liquor License Map - Monsoon Market
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 34
Liquor License Data: MONSOON MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 12 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 5 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 24 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 141.61 165.18
Violent Crimes 9.06 26.32 26.64
*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 57 136
Total Violations 94 258
Page 35
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1086012 1402 58 % 36 % 46 %
1105011 551 49 % 20 % 14 %
1105013 824 16 % 17 % 40 %
1105021 1057 13 % 34 % 30 %
1105022 1216 28 % 19 % 23 %
1106001 1027 29 % 17 % 34 %
1106003 801 27 % 29 % 49 %
1106004 1456 47 % 27 % 3%
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 36
Liquor License Map: MONSOON MARKET
3508 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 37
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Ollie Vaughn's
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 152511.
Summary
Applicant
Lindsey Magee, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1536 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 CNSPD
Council District: 4
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 6, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 38
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 an upstanding community member and business owner for the last 8 years. I pay
my taxes and provide a caring place for neighbors to gather and for my employees to
work. I am conscientious about the liability and responsibility of serving alcohol to the
public and I always put people before profit.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The restaurant industry is a very low profit-margin sector and liquor sales would help
stabalize the prosperity and longevity of Ollie Vaughns. My business is a pillar in our
neighborhood, providing employment opportunities as well as a fun and warm place for
the community to gather. The financial success of the business will allow the business
to continue to serve the community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Ollie Vaughn's
Liquor License Map - Ollie Vaughn's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 39
Liquor License Data: OLLIE VAUGHN'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 5 4
Liquor Store 9 5 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 14 5
Restaurant 12 17 5
Craft Distiller 18 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 111.30 137.57
Violent Crimes 9.06 29.64 28.66
*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 57 127
Total Violations 94 213
Page 40
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1116022 2607 54 % 9% 61 %
1116023 1963 21 % 19 % 82 %
1117001 1792 45 % 32 % 41 %
1117002 1243 39 % 12 % 28 %
1117003 1057 64 % 2% 10 %
1132011 1312 29 % 26 % 48 %
1132031 1473 30 % 20 % 57 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1133001 2490 40 % 12 % 49 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 41
Liquor License Map: OLLIE VAUGHN'S
1526 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 10/13/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 42
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 152511.
Summary
Applicant
Lindsey Magee, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1536 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 CNSPD
Council District: 4
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 6, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 38
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 an upstanding community member and business owner for the last 8 years. I pay
my taxes and provide a caring place for neighbors to gather and for my employees to
work. I am conscientious about the liability and responsibility of serving alcohol to the
public and I always put people before profit.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The restaurant industry is a very low profit-margin sector and liquor sales would help
stabalize the prosperity and longevity of Ollie Vaughns. My business is a pillar in our
neighborhood, providing employment opportunities as well as a fun and warm place for
the community to gather. The financial success of the business will allow the business
to continue to serve the community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Ollie Vaughn's
Liquor License Map - Ollie Vaughn's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 39
Liquor License Data: OLLIE VAUGHN'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 5 4
Liquor Store 9 5 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 14 5
Restaurant 12 17 5
Craft Distiller 18 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 111.30 137.57
Violent Crimes 9.06 29.64 28.66
*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 57 127
Total Violations 94 213
Page 40
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1116022 2607 54 % 9% 61 %
1116023 1963 21 % 19 % 82 %
1117001 1792 45 % 32 % 41 %
1117002 1243 39 % 12 % 28 %
1117003 1057 64 % 2% 10 %
1132011 1312 29 % 26 % 48 %
1132031 1473 30 % 20 % 57 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1133001 2490 40 % 12 % 49 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 41
Liquor License Map: OLLIE VAUGHN'S
1526 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 10/13/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 42
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Jimmies Market
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 164157.
Summary
Applicant
Jamal Jabbar, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
5127 N. 43rd Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
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 Dec. 5, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 43
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.
La Mexicana Super Carniceria (Series 10)
5045 W. Thomas Road, Ste. 103-105, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 21
Liquor license violations: None
Carniceria Los Vaqueros (Series 10)
6440 W. Van Buren St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 16
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am assured to uphold the laws and regulations about beer and wine license. I have
never been involved in any criminal activity, no record of getting in trouble with law and
authorities.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood to buy alcohol.
The location will be convenient for the people in neighborhood who may not have
access to transportation. Adding the long time experience of the working in
convenience store while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be a safe,
secure and convenience place for the customers to purchase quality beer and wine.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Jimmies Market
Page 44
Liquor License Map - Jimmies Market
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 45
Liquor License Data: JIMMIES MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Restaurant 12 3 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 85.72 148.83
Violent Crimes 9.06 21.17 31.95
*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 57 73
Total Violations 94 120
Page 46
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0931014 1203 83 % 25 % 63 %
0931044 521 0% 12 % 47 %
1071011 1603 77 % 10 % 21 %
1071021 1531 50 % 17 % 42 %
1071022 2275 45 % 20 % 45 %
1071023 2082 32 % 14 % 38 %
1092001 1455 52 % 10 % 45 %
1092003 1593 11 % 26 % 32 %
1093001 1129 74 % 7% 26 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 47
Liquor License Map: JIMMIES MARKET
5127 N 43RD AVE
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 48
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 164157.
Summary
Applicant
Jamal Jabbar, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
5127 N. 43rd Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
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 Dec. 5, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 43
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.
La Mexicana Super Carniceria (Series 10)
5045 W. Thomas Road, Ste. 103-105, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 21
Liquor license violations: None
Carniceria Los Vaqueros (Series 10)
6440 W. Van Buren St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 16
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am assured to uphold the laws and regulations about beer and wine license. I have
never been involved in any criminal activity, no record of getting in trouble with law and
authorities.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood to buy alcohol.
The location will be convenient for the people in neighborhood who may not have
access to transportation. Adding the long time experience of the working in
convenience store while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be a safe,
secure and convenience place for the customers to purchase quality beer and wine.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Jimmies Market
Page 44
Liquor License Map - Jimmies Market
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 45
Liquor License Data: JIMMIES MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Restaurant 12 3 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 85.72 148.83
Violent Crimes 9.06 21.17 31.95
*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 57 73
Total Violations 94 120
Page 46
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0931014 1203 83 % 25 % 63 %
0931044 521 0% 12 % 47 %
1071011 1603 77 % 10 % 21 %
1071021 1531 50 % 17 % 42 %
1071022 2275 45 % 20 % 45 %
1071023 2082 32 % 14 % 38 %
1092001 1455 52 % 10 % 45 %
1092003 1593 11 % 26 % 32 %
1093001 1129 74 % 7% 26 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 47
Liquor License Map: JIMMIES MARKET
5127 N 43RD AVE
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 48
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - ARCO AM PM
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 162708.
Summary
Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1201 E. Northern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
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. This location requires a Use Permit to allow package liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 49
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“As owner I meet all requirements for capability and qualifications identified in ARS
Title 4. The owner has been a responsible business owner of a home healthcare
network since 2013.”
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 has had a beer and wine license for many years. Maintaining continuing
service meets the convenience 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
Liquor License Data - ARCO AM PM
Liquor License Map - ARCO AM PM
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 50
Liquor License Data: ARCO AM PM
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 5 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2
Restaurant 12 10 5
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 61.62 70.59
Violent Crimes 9.06 6.84 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 57 73
Total Violations 94 115
Page 51
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051023 1135 72 % 23 % 12 %
1052001 877 71 % 25 % 24 %
1052002 1702 63 % 7% 23 %
1052004 2577 44 % 5% 15 %
1063001 867 51 % 40 % 17 %
1063002 1099 67 % 24 % 17 %
1063003 1910 50 % 11 % 42 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 52
Liquor License Map: ARCO AM PM
1201 E NORTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 10/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 53
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 162708.
Summary
Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1201 E. Northern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
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. This location requires a Use Permit to allow package liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 49
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“As owner I meet all requirements for capability and qualifications identified in ARS
Title 4. The owner has been a responsible business owner of a home healthcare
network since 2013.”
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 has had a beer and wine license for many years. Maintaining continuing
service meets the convenience 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
Liquor License Data - ARCO AM PM
Liquor License Map - ARCO AM PM
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 50
Liquor License Data: ARCO AM PM
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 5 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2
Restaurant 12 10 5
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 61.62 70.59
Violent Crimes 9.06 6.84 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 57 73
Total Violations 94 115
Page 51
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051023 1135 72 % 23 % 12 %
1052001 877 71 % 25 % 24 %
1052002 1702 63 % 7% 23 %
1052004 2577 44 % 5% 15 %
1063001 867 51 % 40 % 17 %
1063002 1099 67 % 24 % 17 %
1063003 1910 50 % 11 % 42 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 52
Liquor License Map: ARCO AM PM
1201 E NORTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 10/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 53
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - The Hub
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 165063.
Summary
Applicant
David Bee, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
14205 S. 50th St.
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 Dec. 7, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 54
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.
Union Grill and Tap (Series 12)
1686 N. Higley Road, #101, Gilbert
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
The Hub Grill & Bar (Series 12)
1925 S. Sossaman Road, #101, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Hub Grill and Bar (Series 12)
1860 S. Stapley Drive, Mesa
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 owned sports bars for over 15 years. I have been liquor certified that entire
time. At The Hub our food sales make up over 65% of total sales so we are a
restaurant first and bar second. We close at 10pm Sunday thru Thursday and 12am
Friday and Saturday. We take our responsibilities as a liquor establishment seriously to
protect our customers and our community.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We call ourselves The Hub because our goal was to be the center of the community
that everything revolves around. We provide a clean friendly environment for our guest
and connect people within the community.”
Page 55
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Hub
Liquor License Map - The Hub
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 56
Liquor License Data: THE HUB
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 4 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 8 4
Liquor Store 9 11 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4
Hotel 11 2 1
Restaurant 12 46 24
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 64.78 114.75
Violent Crimes 9.06 6.71 7.96
*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 57 0
Total Violations 94
Page 57
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167171 1769 0% 25 % 11 %
1167181 2685 40 % 10 % 9%
1167191 1679 87 % 3% 2%
1167192 1023 3% 7% 22 %
1167193 1688 72 % 17 % 14 %
8104002 314 3% 25 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 58
Liquor License Map: THE HUB
14205 S 50TH ST
Ü
Date: 10/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 59
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 165063.
Summary
Applicant
David Bee, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
14205 S. 50th St.
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 Dec. 7, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 54
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.
Union Grill and Tap (Series 12)
1686 N. Higley Road, #101, Gilbert
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
The Hub Grill & Bar (Series 12)
1925 S. Sossaman Road, #101, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Hub Grill and Bar (Series 12)
1860 S. Stapley Drive, Mesa
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 owned sports bars for over 15 years. I have been liquor certified that entire
time. At The Hub our food sales make up over 65% of total sales so we are a
restaurant first and bar second. We close at 10pm Sunday thru Thursday and 12am
Friday and Saturday. We take our responsibilities as a liquor establishment seriously to
protect our customers and our community.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We call ourselves The Hub because our goal was to be the center of the community
that everything revolves around. We provide a clean friendly environment for our guest
and connect people within the community.”
Page 55
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Hub
Liquor License Map - The Hub
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 56
Liquor License Data: THE HUB
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 4 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 8 4
Liquor Store 9 11 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4
Hotel 11 2 1
Restaurant 12 46 24
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 64.78 114.75
Violent Crimes 9.06 6.71 7.96
*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 57 0
Total Violations 94
Page 57
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167171 1769 0% 25 % 11 %
1167181 2685 40 % 10 % 9%
1167191 1679 87 % 3% 2%
1167192 1023 3% 7% 22 %
1167193 1688 72 % 17 % 14 %
8104002 314 3% 25 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 58
Liquor License Map: THE HUB
14205 S 50TH ST
Ü
Date: 10/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 59
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Growhouse Urban Agriculture Center, Inc.
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Kenneth Barrett, Agent
Location
429 W. Jackson St.
Council District: 7
Function
Breakfast
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Dec. 5, 2021 - 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. / 80 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 60
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Kenneth Barrett, Agent
Location
429 W. Jackson St.
Council District: 7
Function
Breakfast
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Dec. 5, 2021 - 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. / 80 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 60
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Egyptian Motor Hotel
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 006070011512.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
765 Grand Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3 CMOD ACOD
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a hotel.
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 Dec. 12, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 61
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 for business and
maintaining 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:
“The Egyptian Motor Hotel will feature a retro modern design with 48 guest rooms, a
restaurant, and an outdoor space for dining nd entertainment. Applicant would like to
offer alcoholic beverages to guests 21 and over.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Egyptian Motor Hotel
Liquor License Map - Egyptian Motor Hotel
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 62
Liquor License Data: EGYPTIAN MOTOR HOTEL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 2
Government 5 4 0
Bar 6 40 6
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 1
Liquor Store 9 3 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Hotel 11 8 0
Restaurant 12 85 9
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 142.64 159.66
Violent Crimes 9.06 48.64 62.10
*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 57 261
Total Violations 94 478
Page 63
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 % 22 % 24 %
1129003 1372 4% 18 % 40 %
1129004 1325 47 % 24 % 52 %
1130001 1218 23 % 16 % 11 %
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 64
Liquor License Map: EGYPTIAN MOTOR HOTEL
765 GRAND AVE
Ü
Date: 10/15/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 65
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 006070011512.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
765 Grand Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3 CMOD ACOD
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a hotel.
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 Dec. 12, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 61
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 for business and
maintaining 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:
“The Egyptian Motor Hotel will feature a retro modern design with 48 guest rooms, a
restaurant, and an outdoor space for dining nd entertainment. Applicant would like to
offer alcoholic beverages to guests 21 and over.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Egyptian Motor Hotel
Liquor License Map - Egyptian Motor Hotel
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 62
Liquor License Data: EGYPTIAN MOTOR HOTEL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 2
Government 5 4 0
Bar 6 40 6
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 1
Liquor Store 9 3 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Hotel 11 8 0
Restaurant 12 85 9
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 142.64 159.66
Violent Crimes 9.06 48.64 62.10
*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 57 261
Total Violations 94 478
Page 63
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 % 22 % 24 %
1129003 1372 4% 18 % 40 %
1129004 1325 47 % 24 % 52 %
1130001 1218 23 % 16 % 11 %
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 64
Liquor License Map: EGYPTIAN MOTOR HOTEL
765 GRAND AVE
Ü
Date: 10/15/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 65
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Envoy/American Airlines
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 161181.
Summary
Applicant
Tracey Gorman, Agent
License Type
Series 8 - Conveyance - Sales of all Liquor on Board Planes
Location
3800 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Zoning Classification: A-1, R-3
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for an airline. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 15, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 66
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.
Admirals Club (Series 14)
3800 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T4/N1N2N3, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1,744
Liquor license violations: None
American Airlines (Series 8)
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 519
Liquor license violations: None
American Airlines (Series 8)
7250 S. Tucson Blvd., #202, Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and to
maintaining 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:
“Applicant is an American regional airline operating 1,000 daily flights to over 150
destinations in the U.S. The airline will offer flights out of Phoenix Sky Harbor and
would like to offer alcoholic beverages to passengers 21 and over.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Page 67
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Envoy/American Airlines
Liquor License Map - Envoy/American Airlines
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 68
Liquor License Data: ENVOY/AMERICAN AIRLINES
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 3 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 0
Conveyance 8 8 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 18 12
Club 14 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 47.10 78.34
Violent Crimes 9.21 2.94 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 57 0
Total Violations 95
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1138021 0 0% 0% 0%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 69
Liquor License Map: ENVOY/AMERICAN AIRLINES
3800 E SKY HARBOR BLVD
Ü
Date: 11/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 70
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 161181.
Summary
Applicant
Tracey Gorman, Agent
License Type
Series 8 - Conveyance - Sales of all Liquor on Board Planes
Location
3800 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Zoning Classification: A-1, R-3
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for an airline. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 15, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 66
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.
Admirals Club (Series 14)
3800 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T4/N1N2N3, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1,744
Liquor license violations: None
American Airlines (Series 8)
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 519
Liquor license violations: None
American Airlines (Series 8)
7250 S. Tucson Blvd., #202, Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and to
maintaining 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:
“Applicant is an American regional airline operating 1,000 daily flights to over 150
destinations in the U.S. The airline will offer flights out of Phoenix Sky Harbor and
would like to offer alcoholic beverages to passengers 21 and over.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Page 67
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Envoy/American Airlines
Liquor License Map - Envoy/American Airlines
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 68
Liquor License Data: ENVOY/AMERICAN AIRLINES
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 3 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 0
Conveyance 8 8 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 18 12
Club 14 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 47.10 78.34
Violent Crimes 9.21 2.94 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 57 0
Total Violations 95
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1138021 0 0% 0% 0%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 69
Liquor License Map: ENVOY/AMERICAN AIRLINES
3800 E SKY HARBOR BLVD
Ü
Date: 11/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 70
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - On The Roxx
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 162572.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
2153 E. Jones Ave.
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 14, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may be given only to the applicant's personal
qualifications and not the location.
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.
Nielsen Spirits (Series 4)
2153 E. Jones Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 3
Page 71
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance applicable laws.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 72
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 162572.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
2153 E. Jones Ave.
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec. 14, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may be given only to the applicant's personal
qualifications and not the location.
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.
Nielsen Spirits (Series 4)
2153 E. Jones Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 3
Page 71
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance applicable laws.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 72
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Sky Club Coffee Food & Wine
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 165482.
Summary
Applicant
Kurt Mangum, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T4 S1
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec.13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 73
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.
Refuge Coffee Food Wine (Series 12)
3800 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T4 N3 F39, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1,166
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:
“As an existing resturant owner serving customers in Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport I
have demonstrated that I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold to
hold a Arizona State Liquor License responsibly. We have maintained exceptional
business practices with no violations.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“As a restaurant owner in Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport - American's Friendliest Airport
this license will allow Sky Club Coffee Food & Wine to provide service to the 44 million
passange traveling to and through Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sky Club Coffee Food & Wine
Liquor License Map - Sky Club Coffee Food & Wine
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 74
Liquor License Data: SKY CLUB COFFEE FOOD & WINE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Conveyance 8 9 6
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0
Restaurant 12 19 6
Club 14 3 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 40.65 66.34
Violent Crimes 9.06 1.88 1.48
*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 57 0
Total Violations 94
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1138021 0 0% 0% 0%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 75
Liquor License Map: SKY CLUB COFFEE FOOD & WINE
3400 E SKY HARBOR BLVD
Ü
Date: 10/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 76
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 165482.
Summary
Applicant
Kurt Mangum, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T4 S1
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Dec.13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 73
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.
Refuge Coffee Food Wine (Series 12)
3800 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T4 N3 F39, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1,166
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:
“As an existing resturant owner serving customers in Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport I
have demonstrated that I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold to
hold a Arizona State Liquor License responsibly. We have maintained exceptional
business practices with no violations.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“As a restaurant owner in Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport - American's Friendliest Airport
this license will allow Sky Club Coffee Food & Wine to provide service to the 44 million
passange traveling to and through Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sky Club Coffee Food & Wine
Liquor License Map - Sky Club Coffee Food & Wine
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 74
Liquor License Data: SKY CLUB COFFEE FOOD & WINE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Conveyance 8 9 6
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0
Restaurant 12 19 6
Club 14 3 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 40.65 66.34
Violent Crimes 9.06 1.88 1.48
*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 57 0
Total Violations 94
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1138021 0 0% 0% 0%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 75
Liquor License Map: SKY CLUB COFFEE FOOD & WINE
3400 E SKY HARBOR BLVD
Ü
Date: 10/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 76
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - El Pecador Taco Shop
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 162314.
Summary
Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2948 E. Bell Road, Ste. 102
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 Dec. 11, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 77
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant chose not to submit a statement supporting this application.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Police Department
recommendation for disapproval due to the applicant's failure to complete the required
City questionnaire and for failure to pay the application fee.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - El Pecador Taco Shop
Liquor License Map - El Pecador Taco Shop
Liquor License Police Department Recommendation - El Pecador Taco Shop
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 78
Liquor License Data: EL PECADOR TACO SHOP
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 7 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Restaurant 12 15 9
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 90.89 95.54
Violent Crimes 9.06 17.96 22.50
*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 57 112
Total Violations 94 259
Page 79
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033032 1103 78 % 9% 18 %
1033041 1926 47 % 13 % 34 %
1033042 1219 2% 16 % 38 %
1033043 1952 26 % 28 % 48 %
1033051 1180 47 % 29 % 35 %
1033052 2333 59 % 9% 30 %
6195002 1716 73 % 4% 23 %
6195003 2362 65 % 14 % 8%
6196001 2094 72 % 11 % 3%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 80
Liquor License Map: EL PECADOR TACO SHOP
2948 E BELL RD
Ü
Date: 10/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 81
Page 82
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 162314.
Summary
Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2948 E. Bell Road, Ste. 102
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 Dec. 11, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 77
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant chose not to submit a statement supporting this application.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Police Department
recommendation for disapproval due to the applicant's failure to complete the required
City questionnaire and for failure to pay the application fee.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - El Pecador Taco Shop
Liquor License Map - El Pecador Taco Shop
Liquor License Police Department Recommendation - El Pecador Taco Shop
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 78
Liquor License Data: EL PECADOR TACO SHOP
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 7 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Restaurant 12 15 9
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 90.89 95.54
Violent Crimes 9.06 17.96 22.50
*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 57 112
Total Violations 94 259
Page 79
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033032 1103 78 % 9% 18 %
1033041 1926 47 % 13 % 34 %
1033042 1219 2% 16 % 38 %
1033043 1952 26 % 28 % 48 %
1033051 1180 47 % 29 % 35 %
1033052 2333 59 % 9% 30 %
6195002 1716 73 % 4% 23 %
6195003 2362 65 % 14 % 8%
6196001 2094 72 % 11 % 3%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 80
Liquor License Map: EL PECADOR TACO SHOP
2948 E BELL RD
Ü
Date: 10/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 81
Page 82
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - La Hefa Cerveceria y Botanas
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163529.
Summary
Applicant
Francisco Gaucin, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
7710 W. Lower Buckeye Road, Ste. 107
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7
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 Dec. 4, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 83
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.
Cash Nightclub & Lounge (Series 6)
1730 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 3
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 completed both the Basic and Management training required in addition to
having the proper business management experience.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“As a local small business the location will provide jobs.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application due to a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - La Hefa Cerveceria y Botanas
Liquor License Map - La Hefa Cerveceria y Botanas
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 84
Liquor License Data: LA HEFA CERVECERIA Y BOTANAS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0
Restaurant 12 6 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 70.32 125.47
Violent Crimes 9.06 9.39 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 57 2
Total Violations 94 2
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1125101 3939 67 % 5% 4%
1125102 931 93 % 10 % 39 %
1125111 2081 76 % 7% 11 %
1125112 3036 75 % 12 % 13 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 85
Liquor License Map: LA HEFA CERVECERIA Y BOTANAS
7710 W LOWER BUCKEYE RD
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 86
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48133) (Items 19-27)
Ordinance S-48133 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-13.
19 North American Region of the Airports Council
International doing business as Airports Council
International - North America
For $149,629.60 in payment authority for 2022 Airports Council
International - North America (ACI-NA) membership dues for the Aviation
Department. ACI-NA is an organization that represents state, local, and
regional governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports in
North America and the world, with a focus on industry issues such as
finance, safety, operations, business, and regulatory issues, as well as the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Homeland Security and
Customs and Border Protection. The item was approved by the
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee on Nov. 17,
2021.
20 Safeware INC.
For $59,132.70 in payment authority to purchase a Mini Caliber Robot for
tactical missions for the Police Department. The portable one-man robot
is simple to operate and quick to deploy. The Phoenix Police
Department's Bomb Squad is tasked with the responsibility to identify and
mitigate potential hazardous devices and items. The remote firing system
is a mechanism to detonate explosive charges from a safe distance.
Robots are a critical component in this identification and mitigation. The
Page 87
small platform robot is quickly and easily deployable and can access
small areas-spaces.
21 Timothy F. Hendershott, doing business as Tartan
Associates
For $45,000.00 in additional payment authority under Contract 148405 for
dispatcher chairs for the Fire Department. The ergonomic work chairs
provide the Dispatch Center with physical support to minimize any health
and physical issues to personnel by regulating body temperature and
comfort for lengthy work schedules. The additional funds will afford the
Fire Department the ability to purchase new dispatch chairs for the Alarm
Headquarters - AHQ1 to replace older chairs that have exceeded their
useful life.
22 CMI Inc
For $42,279 in payment authority to purchase four CMI lntoxllyxer 1R9000
instrument devices for the Police Department. The Traffic Bureau was
awarded funding from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety grant to
purchase four CMI lntoxllyxer 1R9000 Breath Testing Instruments. These
devices have been used in DUI investigations when a suspect cannot
successfully complete a blood draw analysis to determine a blood alcohol
concentration. The Traffic Bureau's function is to keep the streets safe by
conducting DUI investigations, vehicle collision investigations, and traffic
enforcement. The number one cause of traffic collisions is speed and
impairment. These breath testing devices are critical to obtain a legal
breath sample to determine alcohol concentration of a suspected
impaired driver. Therefore, they are essential to the Traffic Bureau and the
23 Radix Metasystems, Inc
For $34,632.00 in payment authority to purchase 16 Nighthawk Leo vision
licenses for the Police Department. The Department’s Crime Gun
Intelligence Unit is requesting to purchase the Nighthawk interface to
improve the capabilities and efficiencies to solve violent crimes.
Nighthawk is a web-based proprietary information aggregator that
organizes user submitted files to include call detail records, Cellebrite
data, social media and other information sources into a cross-checked
timeline that allows investigators to watch how a crime, or a series of
Page 88
crimes, had unfolded using evidence collected from involved parties. The
data uploaded to Nighthawk is owned by a licensing agency and would be
from lawfully seized devices or internet companies like Facebook and
Google.
24 Transcend Robotics Inc.
For $58,300.00 in payment authority to purchase a robotic multi-mission
arm and remote burn safe system for the Phoenix Police Department
(PPD). The PPD’s Special Assignments Unit is responsible for handling
all potentially violent incidents, particularly involving barricaded subjects.
Armed subjects often barricade and hide inside structures and fail to
comply with officer’s commands to surrender. The multi-mission arm and
remote burn safety system will be mounted on the previously purchased
Vantage Robot. These attachments will assist officers in locating armed
subjects by allowing officers to remotely open doors with knobs, grab and
move suspicious debris, and precisely deliver gas munitions. The remote
capabilities and proven success of these attachments are essential to
provide maximum safety to officers, suspects, and the public.
25 American Water Works Association - Annual Payment
Authorization
For $23,875.00 in payment authority for membership renewal to the
American Water Works Association for the Water Services Department.
The American Water Works Association develops most of the standards
and specifications used in the drinking water industry. Membership allows
access to these standards, as well as current water industry research
reports, professional training opportunities, public outreach efforts,
access to a network of industry leaders, and ongoing updates regarding
regulatory issues.
26 Arizona Forward Membership Renewal
For $25,000.00 in payment authority for the City's membership renewal
and continued participation as a Visionary member of Arizona Forward for
Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the City Manager's Office. Arizona Forward's 200
members include businesses, governmental agencies, nonprofit
organizations and 17 municipalities including the City of Phoenix, which
has been a member of Arizona Forward since 1990 and a Visionary
member since 2007.
Page 89
27 Settlement of Claim(s) Metro v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $450,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Metro
v. City of Phoenix, 19-0487-001, BI, GL, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of bodily
injury claim arising out of a transport safety incident on June 4, 2019
involving the Fire Department.
Page 90
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163529.
Summary
Applicant
Francisco Gaucin, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
7710 W. Lower Buckeye Road, Ste. 107
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7
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 Dec. 4, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 83
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.
Cash Nightclub & Lounge (Series 6)
1730 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 3
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 completed both the Basic and Management training required in addition to
having the proper business management experience.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“As a local small business the location will provide jobs.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application due to a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - La Hefa Cerveceria y Botanas
Liquor License Map - La Hefa Cerveceria y Botanas
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 84
Liquor License Data: LA HEFA CERVECERIA Y BOTANAS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0
Restaurant 12 6 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.11 70.32 125.47
Violent Crimes 9.06 9.39 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 57 2
Total Violations 94 2
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1125101 3939 67 % 5% 4%
1125102 931 93 % 10 % 39 %
1125111 2081 76 % 7% 11 %
1125112 3036 75 % 12 % 13 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 85
Liquor License Map: LA HEFA CERVECERIA Y BOTANAS
7710 W LOWER BUCKEYE RD
Ü
Date: 10/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 86
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48133) (Items 19-27)
Ordinance S-48133 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-13.
19 North American Region of the Airports Council
International doing business as Airports Council
International - North America
For $149,629.60 in payment authority for 2022 Airports Council
International - North America (ACI-NA) membership dues for the Aviation
Department. ACI-NA is an organization that represents state, local, and
regional governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports in
North America and the world, with a focus on industry issues such as
finance, safety, operations, business, and regulatory issues, as well as the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Homeland Security and
Customs and Border Protection. The item was approved by the
Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee on Nov. 17,
2021.
20 Safeware INC.
For $59,132.70 in payment authority to purchase a Mini Caliber Robot for
tactical missions for the Police Department. The portable one-man robot
is simple to operate and quick to deploy. The Phoenix Police
Department's Bomb Squad is tasked with the responsibility to identify and
mitigate potential hazardous devices and items. The remote firing system
is a mechanism to detonate explosive charges from a safe distance.
Robots are a critical component in this identification and mitigation. The
Page 87
small platform robot is quickly and easily deployable and can access
small areas-spaces.
21 Timothy F. Hendershott, doing business as Tartan
Associates
For $45,000.00 in additional payment authority under Contract 148405 for
dispatcher chairs for the Fire Department. The ergonomic work chairs
provide the Dispatch Center with physical support to minimize any health
and physical issues to personnel by regulating body temperature and
comfort for lengthy work schedules. The additional funds will afford the
Fire Department the ability to purchase new dispatch chairs for the Alarm
Headquarters - AHQ1 to replace older chairs that have exceeded their
useful life.
22 CMI Inc
For $42,279 in payment authority to purchase four CMI lntoxllyxer 1R9000
instrument devices for the Police Department. The Traffic Bureau was
awarded funding from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety grant to
purchase four CMI lntoxllyxer 1R9000 Breath Testing Instruments. These
devices have been used in DUI investigations when a suspect cannot
successfully complete a blood draw analysis to determine a blood alcohol
concentration. The Traffic Bureau's function is to keep the streets safe by
conducting DUI investigations, vehicle collision investigations, and traffic
enforcement. The number one cause of traffic collisions is speed and
impairment. These breath testing devices are critical to obtain a legal
breath sample to determine alcohol concentration of a suspected
impaired driver. Therefore, they are essential to the Traffic Bureau and the
23 Radix Metasystems, Inc
For $34,632.00 in payment authority to purchase 16 Nighthawk Leo vision
licenses for the Police Department. The Department’s Crime Gun
Intelligence Unit is requesting to purchase the Nighthawk interface to
improve the capabilities and efficiencies to solve violent crimes.
Nighthawk is a web-based proprietary information aggregator that
organizes user submitted files to include call detail records, Cellebrite
data, social media and other information sources into a cross-checked
timeline that allows investigators to watch how a crime, or a series of
Page 88
crimes, had unfolded using evidence collected from involved parties. The
data uploaded to Nighthawk is owned by a licensing agency and would be
from lawfully seized devices or internet companies like Facebook and
Google.
24 Transcend Robotics Inc.
For $58,300.00 in payment authority to purchase a robotic multi-mission
arm and remote burn safe system for the Phoenix Police Department
(PPD). The PPD’s Special Assignments Unit is responsible for handling
all potentially violent incidents, particularly involving barricaded subjects.
Armed subjects often barricade and hide inside structures and fail to
comply with officer’s commands to surrender. The multi-mission arm and
remote burn safety system will be mounted on the previously purchased
Vantage Robot. These attachments will assist officers in locating armed
subjects by allowing officers to remotely open doors with knobs, grab and
move suspicious debris, and precisely deliver gas munitions. The remote
capabilities and proven success of these attachments are essential to
provide maximum safety to officers, suspects, and the public.
25 American Water Works Association - Annual Payment
Authorization
For $23,875.00 in payment authority for membership renewal to the
American Water Works Association for the Water Services Department.
The American Water Works Association develops most of the standards
and specifications used in the drinking water industry. Membership allows
access to these standards, as well as current water industry research
reports, professional training opportunities, public outreach efforts,
access to a network of industry leaders, and ongoing updates regarding
regulatory issues.
26 Arizona Forward Membership Renewal
For $25,000.00 in payment authority for the City's membership renewal
and continued participation as a Visionary member of Arizona Forward for
Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the City Manager's Office. Arizona Forward's 200
members include businesses, governmental agencies, nonprofit
organizations and 17 municipalities including the City of Phoenix, which
has been a member of Arizona Forward since 1990 and a Visionary
member since 2007.
Page 89
27 Settlement of Claim(s) Metro v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $450,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Metro
v. City of Phoenix, 19-0487-001, BI, GL, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of bodily
injury claim arising out of a transport safety incident on June 4, 2019
involving the Fire Department.
Page 90
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Amendment to Pay
Ordinance S-47689 to Authorize Premium Pay Under the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021 to Eligible City Employees (Ordinance S-48170)
Request City Council approval of amendments to Pay Ordinance S-47689 to authorize
payment under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) of five hundred dollars
($500) in premium pay to eligible full-time employees and two hundred fifty dollars
($250) in premium pay to eligible non-seasonal part-time employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, and 8, and authorize payment under ARPA of one thousand five hundred
dollars ($1,500) to eligible full-time employees and seven hundred fifty ($750) to
eligible non-seasonal part-time employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, who are
fully vaccinated for COVID-19 by January 18, 2022 (Attachment A).
Summary
The City was awarded approximately $396 million in ARPA funds. The City received its
first payment ($198 million) in May 2021. The City is currently scheduled to receive
approximately $198 million in additional ARPA funds for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
The City is permitted to use ARPA funds to pay additional compensation, or “premium
pay,” to eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health
emergency. Premium pay is intended for the workers who have been and continue to
be relied on to maintain continuity of operations of essential critical infrastructure
sectors, including those who are critical to protecting the health and wellbeing of their
communities.
Under the Interim Final Rule, “essential work” is work that is not performed by
teleworking from a residence that involves regular in-person interactions with the
public or co-workers of the individual who is performing the work or regular physical
handling of items that were handled by or are to be handled by the public or the
individual’s co-workers.
The proposed change to Section 11 [Assignment Pay, Differential, Standby and Other
Additional Compensation] of the current Pay Ordinance (S-47689) would permit the
payment of five hundred dollars ($500) in “premium pay” under ARPA to eligible full-
time City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the payment of two hundred fifty
Page 91
($250) in “premium pay” under ARPA to eligible non-seasonal part-time City
employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. This proposed change would also permit
the payment of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) in “premium pay” under
ARPA to eligible full-time City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and permit the
payment of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) in “premium pay” under ARPA to eligible
non-seasonal part-time City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, if the employee is
fully vaccinated for COVID-19 by January 18, 2021.
These payments are expected to total approximately $25 million to $29 million.
Financial Impact
The cost of all actions taken related to this ordinance would be paid for from ARPA
funds allocated to the City.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Pay Ordinance (S-47689) was approved by Council on June 16, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 92
ATTACHMENT A
PURPOSE – The proposed amendments to Section 11 of the Pay Ordinance (S-
47689) is designed to authorize the payment of “premium pay” under ARPA to
eligible City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
New language to be included in the Pay Ordinance is identified in all capital letters.
Deletions are indicated by strikethrough. Proposed language is as follows:
SECTION 11. Assignment Pay, Differential, Standby and Other
Additional Compensation
(Z) THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE PREMIUM PAY
AS SET FORTH IN THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021
(ARPA) IN THE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500) TO
ELIGIBLE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND
8 WHO ARE NOT TELEWORKING MORE THAN TWO DAYS PER
WEEK AS OF JANUARY 18, 2022 AND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
DOLLARS ($250) TO ELIGIBLE NON-SEASONAL PART-TIME
EMPLOYEES IN UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WHO ARE NOT
TELEWORKING MORE THAN TWO DAYS PER WEEK AS OF
JANUARY 18, 2022. ALL PAYMENTS MUST CONFORM WITH THE
ARPA, AS AMENDED.
THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE PREMIUM PAY
AS SET FORTH IN THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021
(ARPA) IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($1500) TO ELIGIBLE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN UNITS
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WHO ARE NOT TELEWORKING MORE THAN
TWO DAYS PER WEEK, AND ARE FULLY VACCINATED FOR
COVID-19 BY JANUARY 18, 2022, AND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY
DOLLARS TO ELIGIBLE NON-SEASONAL PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
IN UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WHO ARE NOT TELEWORKING
MORE THAN TWO DAYS PER WEEK, AND ARE FULLY
VACCINATED FOR COVID-19 BY JANUARY 18, 2022. ALL
PAYMENTS MUST CONFORM WITH THE ARPA, AS AMENDED.
Page 93
Report
Ordinance S-47689 to Authorize Premium Pay Under the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021 to Eligible City Employees (Ordinance S-48170)
Request City Council approval of amendments to Pay Ordinance S-47689 to authorize
payment under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) of five hundred dollars
($500) in premium pay to eligible full-time employees and two hundred fifty dollars
($250) in premium pay to eligible non-seasonal part-time employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, and 8, and authorize payment under ARPA of one thousand five hundred
dollars ($1,500) to eligible full-time employees and seven hundred fifty ($750) to
eligible non-seasonal part-time employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, who are
fully vaccinated for COVID-19 by January 18, 2022 (Attachment A).
Summary
The City was awarded approximately $396 million in ARPA funds. The City received its
first payment ($198 million) in May 2021. The City is currently scheduled to receive
approximately $198 million in additional ARPA funds for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
The City is permitted to use ARPA funds to pay additional compensation, or “premium
pay,” to eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health
emergency. Premium pay is intended for the workers who have been and continue to
be relied on to maintain continuity of operations of essential critical infrastructure
sectors, including those who are critical to protecting the health and wellbeing of their
communities.
Under the Interim Final Rule, “essential work” is work that is not performed by
teleworking from a residence that involves regular in-person interactions with the
public or co-workers of the individual who is performing the work or regular physical
handling of items that were handled by or are to be handled by the public or the
individual’s co-workers.
The proposed change to Section 11 [Assignment Pay, Differential, Standby and Other
Additional Compensation] of the current Pay Ordinance (S-47689) would permit the
payment of five hundred dollars ($500) in “premium pay” under ARPA to eligible full-
time City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the payment of two hundred fifty
Page 91
($250) in “premium pay” under ARPA to eligible non-seasonal part-time City
employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. This proposed change would also permit
the payment of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) in “premium pay” under
ARPA to eligible full-time City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and permit the
payment of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) in “premium pay” under ARPA to eligible
non-seasonal part-time City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, if the employee is
fully vaccinated for COVID-19 by January 18, 2021.
These payments are expected to total approximately $25 million to $29 million.
Financial Impact
The cost of all actions taken related to this ordinance would be paid for from ARPA
funds allocated to the City.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Pay Ordinance (S-47689) was approved by Council on June 16, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 92
ATTACHMENT A
PURPOSE – The proposed amendments to Section 11 of the Pay Ordinance (S-
47689) is designed to authorize the payment of “premium pay” under ARPA to
eligible City employees in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
New language to be included in the Pay Ordinance is identified in all capital letters.
Deletions are indicated by strikethrough. Proposed language is as follows:
SECTION 11. Assignment Pay, Differential, Standby and Other
Additional Compensation
(Z) THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE PREMIUM PAY
AS SET FORTH IN THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021
(ARPA) IN THE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500) TO
ELIGIBLE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND
8 WHO ARE NOT TELEWORKING MORE THAN TWO DAYS PER
WEEK AS OF JANUARY 18, 2022 AND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
DOLLARS ($250) TO ELIGIBLE NON-SEASONAL PART-TIME
EMPLOYEES IN UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WHO ARE NOT
TELEWORKING MORE THAN TWO DAYS PER WEEK AS OF
JANUARY 18, 2022. ALL PAYMENTS MUST CONFORM WITH THE
ARPA, AS AMENDED.
THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE PREMIUM PAY
AS SET FORTH IN THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021
(ARPA) IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($1500) TO ELIGIBLE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN UNITS
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WHO ARE NOT TELEWORKING MORE THAN
TWO DAYS PER WEEK, AND ARE FULLY VACCINATED FOR
COVID-19 BY JANUARY 18, 2022, AND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY
DOLLARS TO ELIGIBLE NON-SEASONAL PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
IN UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WHO ARE NOT TELEWORKING
MORE THAN TWO DAYS PER WEEK, AND ARE FULLY
VACCINATED FOR COVID-19 BY JANUARY 18, 2022. ALL
PAYMENTS MUST CONFORM WITH THE ARPA, AS AMENDED.
Page 93
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment to Pay Ordinance S-47689 to Authorize a Retention Incentive Cash
Award Program for Eligible City Employees (Ordinance S-48168)
Request City Council approval of amendments to Pay Ordinance S-47689 to authorize
a retention cash award program of up to seven thousand five hundred dollars
($7,500.00) to eligible employees in critical positions, positions that are difficult to
retain, or positions that require a rare skill set (Attachment A).
Summary
The proposed change to Section 12 [Awards Programs] of the current Pay Ordinance
(S-47689) would permit the payment of up to seven thousand five hundred dollars
($7,500.00) to retain trained and qualified employees meeting performance standards
in critical positions, positions that are difficult to retain, or positions that require a rare
skill set in this highly competitive labor market.
Financial Impact
The cost of the Retention Incentive Cash Award would be absorbed in the requesting
department’s operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Pay Ordinance (S-47689) was approved by Council on June 16, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 94
ATTACHMENT A
PURPOSE – The proposed amendments to Section 12 of the Pay Ordinance (S-47689)
is designed to authorize a retention cash award program for eligible employees in
critical positions, positions that are difficult to retain, or positions that require a rare skill
set.
New language to be included in the Pay Ordinance is identified in all capital letters.
Deletions are indicated by strikethrough. For convenience all amendments,
including formatting changes, are highlighted in yellow. Proposed language is as
follows:
SECTION 12. Awards Programs
(H) THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH A
RETENTION INCENTIVE CASH AWARD NOT TO EXCEED SEVEN
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($7,500.00) TO RETAIN
EMPLOYEES IN CRITICAL POSITIONS, POSITIONS THAT ARE
DIFFICULT TO RETAIN, OR POSITIONS THAT REQUIRE A RARE
SKILL SET, WHEN IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AS
DETERMINED BY THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AND THE
CITY MANAGER. EMPLOYEES RECEIVING THIS AWARD MUST
MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
CITY MANAGER. RETENTION INCENTIVES MAY NOT BE
AWARDED TO AN EMPLOYEE MORE THAN ONCE EVERY TWO
YEARS AND EMPLOYEES MAY BE REQUIRED TO REPAY AWARDS
IF THEY LEAVE THE CITY SOONER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER
RECEIVING AN AWARD.
Page 95
Report
Award Program for Eligible City Employees (Ordinance S-48168)
Request City Council approval of amendments to Pay Ordinance S-47689 to authorize
a retention cash award program of up to seven thousand five hundred dollars
($7,500.00) to eligible employees in critical positions, positions that are difficult to
retain, or positions that require a rare skill set (Attachment A).
Summary
The proposed change to Section 12 [Awards Programs] of the current Pay Ordinance
(S-47689) would permit the payment of up to seven thousand five hundred dollars
($7,500.00) to retain trained and qualified employees meeting performance standards
in critical positions, positions that are difficult to retain, or positions that require a rare
skill set in this highly competitive labor market.
Financial Impact
The cost of the Retention Incentive Cash Award would be absorbed in the requesting
department’s operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Pay Ordinance (S-47689) was approved by Council on June 16, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Human Resources
Department.
Page 94
ATTACHMENT A
PURPOSE – The proposed amendments to Section 12 of the Pay Ordinance (S-47689)
is designed to authorize a retention cash award program for eligible employees in
critical positions, positions that are difficult to retain, or positions that require a rare skill
set.
New language to be included in the Pay Ordinance is identified in all capital letters.
Deletions are indicated by strikethrough. For convenience all amendments,
including formatting changes, are highlighted in yellow. Proposed language is as
follows:
SECTION 12. Awards Programs
(H) THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH A
RETENTION INCENTIVE CASH AWARD NOT TO EXCEED SEVEN
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($7,500.00) TO RETAIN
EMPLOYEES IN CRITICAL POSITIONS, POSITIONS THAT ARE
DIFFICULT TO RETAIN, OR POSITIONS THAT REQUIRE A RARE
SKILL SET, WHEN IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AS
DETERMINED BY THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AND THE
CITY MANAGER. EMPLOYEES RECEIVING THIS AWARD MUST
MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AS DETERMINED BY THE
CITY MANAGER. RETENTION INCENTIVES MAY NOT BE
AWARDED TO AN EMPLOYEE MORE THAN ONCE EVERY TWO
YEARS AND EMPLOYEES MAY BE REQUIRED TO REPAY AWARDS
IF THEY LEAVE THE CITY SOONER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER
RECEIVING AN AWARD.
Page 95
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of a Deed and Easements for Public Utility, Roadway
or Sidewalk Purposes (Ordinance S-48144)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate a deed and easements for public
utility, roadway or sidewalk purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting 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)
Applicant: ACG-Arancia, LLLP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 2610 and 2620 N. 52nd St.
File: FN 210094
Council District: 6
Deed (b)
Applicant: ACG-Arancia, LLLP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 2610 and 2620 N. 52nd St.
File: FN 210094
Council District: 6
Easement (c)
Applicant: ACG-Arancia, LLLP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 2610 and 2620 N. 52nd St.
File: FN 210094
Council District: 6
Easement (d)
Applicant: Sheffa II, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Page 96
Location: 6120 W. Buckeye Road
File: FN 210085
Council District: 7
Easement (e)
Applicant: Shane Hamberg and Jeremy Capis, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 1709 and 1713 E. Madison St.
File: FN 210088
Council District: 8
Easement (f)
Applicant: WLD Housing, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 1701 and 1717 E. McDowell Road
File: FN 210091
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 97
Report
or Sidewalk Purposes (Ordinance S-48144)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate a deed and easements for public
utility, roadway or sidewalk purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting 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)
Applicant: ACG-Arancia, LLLP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 2610 and 2620 N. 52nd St.
File: FN 210094
Council District: 6
Deed (b)
Applicant: ACG-Arancia, LLLP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 2610 and 2620 N. 52nd St.
File: FN 210094
Council District: 6
Easement (c)
Applicant: ACG-Arancia, LLLP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 2610 and 2620 N. 52nd St.
File: FN 210094
Council District: 6
Easement (d)
Applicant: Sheffa II, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Page 96
Location: 6120 W. Buckeye Road
File: FN 210085
Council District: 7
Easement (e)
Applicant: Shane Hamberg and Jeremy Capis, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 1709 and 1713 E. Madison St.
File: FN 210088
Council District: 8
Easement (f)
Applicant: WLD Housing, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 1701 and 1717 E. McDowell Road
File: FN 210091
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 97
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance of an Easement for Drainage Purposes (Ordinance S-48146)
Request for the City Council to accept an easement for drainage purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interest below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Sheffa II, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 6120 W. Buckeye Road.
File: FN 210085
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 98
Report
Request for the City Council to accept an easement for drainage purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interest below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Sheffa II, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 6120 W. Buckeye Road.
File: FN 210085
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 98
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acquisition of Real Property for Street Light Improvements along North 27th
Avenue between West Maryland Avenue and West Claremont Street (Ordinance
S-48150)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests required by donation, purchase within the City's
appraised value, or by the power of eminent domain for street light improvements
along North 27th Ave. between West Maryland Ave. and West Claremont St. Further
request to authorize dedication of land with roadway improvements to public use for
right-of-way purposes via separate recording instrument. Additionally, request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The acquisition of real property is needed for the installation of an aerial electrical wire
and three street light poles along North 27th Ave. between West Maryland Ave. and
West Claremont St. This corridor has been identified as a safety priority requiring
additional street lighting because of a high number of collisions involving both
pedestrians and vehicles.
The parcel affected by this project and included in this request is identified by
Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number 156-03-001A located at 6351 N. 27th Ave.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Location
27th Ave. between West Maryland Ave. and West Claremont St.
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 99
Report
Avenue between West Maryland Avenue and West Claremont Street (Ordinance
S-48150)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests required by donation, purchase within the City's
appraised value, or by the power of eminent domain for street light improvements
along North 27th Ave. between West Maryland Ave. and West Claremont St. Further
request to authorize dedication of land with roadway improvements to public use for
right-of-way purposes via separate recording instrument. Additionally, request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The acquisition of real property is needed for the installation of an aerial electrical wire
and three street light poles along North 27th Ave. between West Maryland Ave. and
West Claremont St. This corridor has been identified as a safety priority requiring
additional street lighting because of a high number of collisions involving both
pedestrians and vehicles.
The parcel affected by this project and included in this request is identified by
Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number 156-03-001A located at 6351 N. 27th Ave.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Location
27th Ave. between West Maryland Ave. and West Claremont St.
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 99
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Amend the Revocable License Agreements 137352 (P-50219)
and 137379 (P-50189) with Maricopa County (Ordinance S-48154)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Revocable License
Agreements 137352 and 137379 with Maricopa County, a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona (County), to extend the term for one five-year period, and to add one
five-year option. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The license fee is $10.00 annually for each license
agreement.
Summary
The City has occupied space at various County facilities for access and placement of
portable security camera systems and equipment. This allows the Police Department's
Homeland Defense Bureau to maintain the personal safety and security of the public
and operational efficiencies of downtown events.
Each revocable license agreement will be amended to extend the term for one five-
year period, commencing Jan. 1, 2022 through Dec. 31, 2026, and to add one five-
year option through Dec. 31, 2031. All other terms and conditions will remain the
same.
Contract Term
The agreements will be amended to extend the term for one five-year period, and to
add one five-year option.
Financial Impact
The license fee is $10.00 annually for each license agreement.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· Ordinance S-43161 was adopted by City Council on Jan. 25, 2017 authorizing
Agreement 137352.
· Ordinance S-43127 was adopted by City Council on Jan. 11, 2017 authorizing
Agreement 137379.
Page 100
Location
Various County facilities within downtown Phoenix.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, and the Police and
Finance departments.
Page 101
Report
and 137379 (P-50189) with Maricopa County (Ordinance S-48154)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Revocable License
Agreements 137352 and 137379 with Maricopa County, a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona (County), to extend the term for one five-year period, and to add one
five-year option. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The license fee is $10.00 annually for each license
agreement.
Summary
The City has occupied space at various County facilities for access and placement of
portable security camera systems and equipment. This allows the Police Department's
Homeland Defense Bureau to maintain the personal safety and security of the public
and operational efficiencies of downtown events.
Each revocable license agreement will be amended to extend the term for one five-
year period, commencing Jan. 1, 2022 through Dec. 31, 2026, and to add one five-
year option through Dec. 31, 2031. All other terms and conditions will remain the
same.
Contract Term
The agreements will be amended to extend the term for one five-year period, and to
add one five-year option.
Financial Impact
The license fee is $10.00 annually for each license agreement.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· Ordinance S-43161 was adopted by City Council on Jan. 25, 2017 authorizing
Agreement 137352.
· Ordinance S-43127 was adopted by City Council on Jan. 11, 2017 authorizing
Agreement 137379.
Page 100
Location
Various County facilities within downtown Phoenix.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, and the Police and
Finance departments.
Page 101
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Title, Escrow and Title Insurance Services for Citywide Projects (Ordinance S-
48160)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with the
title, escrow and title insurance vendors listed below. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value
shall not exceed $2,250,000.
Summary
The Finance Department Real Estate Division implements the use of a Qualified
Vendor List (QVL) for title, escrow and title insurance services for Citywide projects on
an as-needed basis for a contract period beginning Dec. 1, 2021, through Nov. 30,
2026. The Real Estate Division contracts with title, escrow and title insurance services
for needs related to the acquisition of real property, as requested by City departments.
Procurement Information
The Finance Department released a Request for Qualifications (RFQu) for Title,
Escrow and Title Insurance Services on Aug. 10, 2021. The RFQu was conducted in
accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. Three proposals were received in
response to the RFQu, all of which were deemed responsive to the requirements of
the RFQu.
The Title, Escrow and Title Insurance Services providers on the QVL are:
1. Chicago Title Agency, Inc.
2. Pioneer Title Agency, Inc.
3. Security Title Agency, Inc.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021. Provisions of the
contract include that at the City's discretion, additional procurements may be issued in
order to expand the QVL.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value shall not exceed $2,250,000. Funds are available in
Page 102
various departments' budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is recommended by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance
Department.
Page 103
Report
48160)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with the
title, escrow and title insurance vendors listed below. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value
shall not exceed $2,250,000.
Summary
The Finance Department Real Estate Division implements the use of a Qualified
Vendor List (QVL) for title, escrow and title insurance services for Citywide projects on
an as-needed basis for a contract period beginning Dec. 1, 2021, through Nov. 30,
2026. The Real Estate Division contracts with title, escrow and title insurance services
for needs related to the acquisition of real property, as requested by City departments.
Procurement Information
The Finance Department released a Request for Qualifications (RFQu) for Title,
Escrow and Title Insurance Services on Aug. 10, 2021. The RFQu was conducted in
accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. Three proposals were received in
response to the RFQu, all of which were deemed responsive to the requirements of
the RFQu.
The Title, Escrow and Title Insurance Services providers on the QVL are:
1. Chicago Title Agency, Inc.
2. Pioneer Title Agency, Inc.
3. Security Title Agency, Inc.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021. Provisions of the
contract include that at the City's discretion, additional procurements may be issued in
order to expand the QVL.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value shall not exceed $2,250,000. Funds are available in
Page 102
various departments' budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is recommended by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance
Department.
Page 103
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Disaster Recovery Services (Ordinance S-48169)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment
under Contract 131627 with Sungard Availability Services, LP (Contractor) to allow for
payment to the Contractor’s first taxable entity, Sungard AS New Holdings III, LLC.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. No additional funds are needed.
Summary
This contract provides disaster recovery services for citywide use. The Contractor
informed the City of a change in its corporate tax structure, which established Sungard
AS New Holdings III, LLC as its first taxable entity. Sungard AS New Holdings III, LLC
is the Contractor’s new parent company, and the Contractor is now a disregarded
entity within the meaning of U.S. Treasury Regulation § 301.7701-3. Accordingly, the
City will remit payment due under the contract to the Contractor and Sungard AS New
Holdings, LLC. The amendment will ensure that payment can be made to the
Contractor and its first taxable entity following the change in its corporate tax structure.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term shall remain the same. The contract term is valid
through Dec. 31, 2021.
Financial Impact
Upon approval, the financial impact shall remain the same. No additional funds are
needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on March 16, 2011.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 104
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment
under Contract 131627 with Sungard Availability Services, LP (Contractor) to allow for
payment to the Contractor’s first taxable entity, Sungard AS New Holdings III, LLC.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. No additional funds are needed.
Summary
This contract provides disaster recovery services for citywide use. The Contractor
informed the City of a change in its corporate tax structure, which established Sungard
AS New Holdings III, LLC as its first taxable entity. Sungard AS New Holdings III, LLC
is the Contractor’s new parent company, and the Contractor is now a disregarded
entity within the meaning of U.S. Treasury Regulation § 301.7701-3. Accordingly, the
City will remit payment due under the contract to the Contractor and Sungard AS New
Holdings, LLC. The amendment will ensure that payment can be made to the
Contractor and its first taxable entity following the change in its corporate tax structure.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term shall remain the same. The contract term is valid
through Dec. 31, 2021.
Financial Impact
Upon approval, the financial impact shall remain the same. No additional funds are
needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on March 16, 2011.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 104
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Enter into Agreements for Investigative Services (Ordinance S-
48140)
Request to authorize the City Manager, through the City Attorney, or his designee, to
enter into investigative service agreements with various law firms and lawyers to
provide investigation services to the City on an as-needed basis as determined by the
City Attorney. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds in an
amount not to exceed $300,000 in total over the five-year contract term.
Summary
The existing list of qualified firms and attorneys, that currently provide investigative
research to the City on an as-needed basis, expires December 31, 2021. Although the
Law Department is exempted in the City Code as to the requirement to issue a
solicitation for these legal services, the Law Department issued a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for law firms and lawyers to submit qualifications to be on a list to
provide investigative services to the City. The Law Department received 4 responses
to the RFQ and determined that 4 firms met the minimum requirements and have been
approved to be placed on the list to be engaged to represent the City on a case-by-
case basis, as follows:
Investigative Research, Inc.
Kolb, Stewart, & Associates, Inc.
Outback Adjusting and Investigative Services, Inc.
Venti Investigations, Inc.
The City Code authorizes the City Attorney to enter into agreements to provide legal
services for the City of Phoenix. Upon approval of this request by the City Council, the
City Attorney will enter into agreements, as needed, with firms of approved
respondents to the RFQ. As needed, the City Attorney may also contract for other legal
services, including services of attorneys, expert witnesses, and other legal advisors or
consultants consistent with the authority granted in the Phoenix City Code, sections 2-
10 and 43-2.
Contract Term
Each contract term will be for a period of two years with three one-year options for a
Page 105
maximum of five years.
Financial Impact
Funds are available in various department budgets, including Law Department and the
Self-Insurance Fund. The individual contracts will set forth the specific fees for each
service. Payments will be made from affected funding sources, primarily the Self-
Insurance Fund, or the general fund on an individual case or assignment basis. Total
expenditures over the life of all contracts will not exceed $300,000.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.
Page 106
Report
48140)
Request to authorize the City Manager, through the City Attorney, or his designee, to
enter into investigative service agreements with various law firms and lawyers to
provide investigation services to the City on an as-needed basis as determined by the
City Attorney. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds in an
amount not to exceed $300,000 in total over the five-year contract term.
Summary
The existing list of qualified firms and attorneys, that currently provide investigative
research to the City on an as-needed basis, expires December 31, 2021. Although the
Law Department is exempted in the City Code as to the requirement to issue a
solicitation for these legal services, the Law Department issued a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for law firms and lawyers to submit qualifications to be on a list to
provide investigative services to the City. The Law Department received 4 responses
to the RFQ and determined that 4 firms met the minimum requirements and have been
approved to be placed on the list to be engaged to represent the City on a case-by-
case basis, as follows:
Investigative Research, Inc.
Kolb, Stewart, & Associates, Inc.
Outback Adjusting and Investigative Services, Inc.
Venti Investigations, Inc.
The City Code authorizes the City Attorney to enter into agreements to provide legal
services for the City of Phoenix. Upon approval of this request by the City Council, the
City Attorney will enter into agreements, as needed, with firms of approved
respondents to the RFQ. As needed, the City Attorney may also contract for other legal
services, including services of attorneys, expert witnesses, and other legal advisors or
consultants consistent with the authority granted in the Phoenix City Code, sections 2-
10 and 43-2.
Contract Term
Each contract term will be for a period of two years with three one-year options for a
Page 105
maximum of five years.
Financial Impact
Funds are available in various department budgets, including Law Department and the
Self-Insurance Fund. The individual contracts will set forth the specific fees for each
service. Payments will be made from affected funding sources, primarily the Self-
Insurance Fund, or the general fund on an individual case or assignment basis. Total
expenditures over the life of all contracts will not exceed $300,000.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.
Page 106
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
COVID-19 Community and Mobile Testing and Vaccination Health Events -
Amendment (Ordinance S-48162)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, execute amendments to
contracts: 152654 with Family Tree Health Care, LLC; 152430 with Equality Health
Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC and Equality Care Center; 152825 with
Vincere Physician's Group PLLC; and 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions to provide
additional funding. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This item will have an aggregate amount of $2.4 million.
Summary
The City Council declared a local emergency due to COVID-19 pandemic on March
20, 2020. Staff continues to work with COVID-19 testing vendors and ensure that
community testing and vaccination efforts for residents are available through the
duration of the public health emergency. The Public Works Department continues to
coordinate COVID-19 testing and vaccination service capability to the general public at
community testing health care events.
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Strategic Plan includes $5 million in funding to
continue COVID-19 community testing and vaccine services. This request seeks
authorization to expend the balance of City resources allocated to Better Health
Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines.
Contract Term
The agreements began on July 1, 2021, for a six-month period, with one option to
extend for an additional six months.
Financial Impact
This additional funding will not exceed an aggregate value of $5 million. Funding for
this item is available through the ARPA Strategic Plan as an approved program for
Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 152430 (S-46775) with Equality Health Foundation on June 17, 2020;
Page 107
· Agreement 152654 (S-46848) with Family Tree Health Care LLC on July 1, 2020;
· Agreement 152825 (S-46849) with Vincere Physicians Group on July 1, 2020;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; and
152825 with Vincere Physicians Group - Amendments (S-47158) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· Agreement 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions (S-47219) on Jan. 6, 2021;
· ARPA Strategic Plan for Allocation 1 on June 8, 2021;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 Premier Lab Solutions - Amendments
(S-47827) on July 1, 2021; and
· ARPA Strategic Plan Update on Sept. 21, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Karen Peters, and the Public Works Department.
Page 108
Report
Amendment (Ordinance S-48162)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, execute amendments to
contracts: 152654 with Family Tree Health Care, LLC; 152430 with Equality Health
Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC and Equality Care Center; 152825 with
Vincere Physician's Group PLLC; and 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions to provide
additional funding. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This item will have an aggregate amount of $2.4 million.
Summary
The City Council declared a local emergency due to COVID-19 pandemic on March
20, 2020. Staff continues to work with COVID-19 testing vendors and ensure that
community testing and vaccination efforts for residents are available through the
duration of the public health emergency. The Public Works Department continues to
coordinate COVID-19 testing and vaccination service capability to the general public at
community testing health care events.
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Strategic Plan includes $5 million in funding to
continue COVID-19 community testing and vaccine services. This request seeks
authorization to expend the balance of City resources allocated to Better Health
Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines.
Contract Term
The agreements began on July 1, 2021, for a six-month period, with one option to
extend for an additional six months.
Financial Impact
This additional funding will not exceed an aggregate value of $5 million. Funding for
this item is available through the ARPA Strategic Plan as an approved program for
Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 152430 (S-46775) with Equality Health Foundation on June 17, 2020;
Page 107
· Agreement 152654 (S-46848) with Family Tree Health Care LLC on July 1, 2020;
· Agreement 152825 (S-46849) with Vincere Physicians Group on July 1, 2020;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; and
152825 with Vincere Physicians Group - Amendments (S-47158) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· Agreement 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions (S-47219) on Jan. 6, 2021;
· ARPA Strategic Plan for Allocation 1 on June 8, 2021;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 Premier Lab Solutions - Amendments
(S-47827) on July 1, 2021; and
· ARPA Strategic Plan Update on Sept. 21, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Karen Peters, and the Public Works Department.
Page 108
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request Authorization to Enter Into Agreement with Justa Center, Inc. for COVID
-19 Supportive Services for Seniors Experiencing Homelessness (Ordinance S-
48143)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Justa Center, Inc. to provide COVID-19 supportive services for seniors
experiencing homelessness. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total contract value will not exceed $1
million over the life of the agreement.
Summary
Justa Center, Inc. provides outreach, housing placement and supportive services for
seniors (55+) who are experiencing homelessness. These funds will expand outreach
and engagement services, non-urgent facility-based care and housing supportive
services such as move in-kits (linens, towels, kitchen items, bedding, etc.), classes on
independent living, weekly check-in visits from a social worker, assistance with
scheduling health care related appointments, and transportation to health care
appointments, if needed.
Contract Term
The initial term of the agreement will begin on or about Dec.1, 2021, and end June 30,
2022, with two one-year options to extend through June 30, 2024, and one six-month
option to extend through Dec. 31, 2024. Any extension option may be exercised by the
City Manager or his designee.
Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $1 million over the life of the contract. Funding is
available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act funding
received from the federal government and is under the City’s Mitigation and Care for
Vulnerable Populations category of the strategic plan.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 109
Report
-19 Supportive Services for Seniors Experiencing Homelessness (Ordinance S-
48143)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Justa Center, Inc. to provide COVID-19 supportive services for seniors
experiencing homelessness. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total contract value will not exceed $1
million over the life of the agreement.
Summary
Justa Center, Inc. provides outreach, housing placement and supportive services for
seniors (55+) who are experiencing homelessness. These funds will expand outreach
and engagement services, non-urgent facility-based care and housing supportive
services such as move in-kits (linens, towels, kitchen items, bedding, etc.), classes on
independent living, weekly check-in visits from a social worker, assistance with
scheduling health care related appointments, and transportation to health care
appointments, if needed.
Contract Term
The initial term of the agreement will begin on or about Dec.1, 2021, and end June 30,
2022, with two one-year options to extend through June 30, 2024, and one six-month
option to extend through Dec. 31, 2024. Any extension option may be exercised by the
City Manager or his designee.
Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $1 million over the life of the contract. Funding is
available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act funding
received from the federal government and is under the City’s Mitigation and Care for
Vulnerable Populations category of the strategic plan.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 109
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
CARES Act Community Development Block Grant Reallocation (Ordinance S-
48164)
Request the City Council to approve the reallocation of $6 million of available
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act funding, and approval to take all necessary actions and execute
all documents and agreements required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as authorized by CARES Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted
March 27, 2020, for the specific purpose of preventing, preparing for, and responding
to the COVID-19 public health crisis, including amending the 2015-20 Consolidated
Plan's 2019-20 Annual Action Plan as needed. Further request authorization to utilize a
portion of the funds to enter into agreements with the Salvation Army and Central
Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,692,315.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City of Phoenix received two rounds of CARES Act CDBG funding to help Phoenix
residents, businesses, and neighborhoods prevent, prepare for, and respond to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Since May 2020, the City Council has authorized the
Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) to implement multiple programs by
allocating the CARES Act CDBG funds towards support services and shelters for
people experiencing homelessness, COVID-19 relief grant awards to microenterprise
businesses, assistance to local non-profit organizations, and funding Owner Occupied
Rehabilitation shelter-in-place services.
In May 2021, NSD posted a $14 million Request-for-Proposals (RFP) for Shelter
Acquisition and Facility Improvements resulting in two awards for a total of $8 million,
leaving $6 million available to allocate towards new programs to continue to assist our
community to further prevent the spread and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Staff proposes to allocate the available CARES Act CDBG funds into the following
activities to help the community further prevent the spread and respond to the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Page 110
Open Application RFP for Shelter Acquisition Projects
$2 million will be used to fund real property acquisitions of emergency or transitional
shelter facilities to provide expanded shelter beds for individuals and families
experiencing homelessness in the City of Phoenix to prevent, prepare for, and respond
to the COVID-19 pandemic. An open application RFP will provide the applicants
adequate time to identify a project site and be prepared for acquisition prior to
application.
Open Application RFP for COVID-19 Clean Public Facility Improvements and
Upgrades
$2,307,685 will be used to fund improvements to heating, ventilation, air conditioning
(HVAC) systems, antimicrobial surfaces, and touchless fixtures in public facilities to
reduce airborne transmission risks to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-
19 pandemic, focusing on individuals and families with low- and moderate incomes in
the City of Phoenix. The facility must be publicly owned or owned by a nonprofit and
open to the general public. Facilities may include, but are not limited to public schools,
libraries, recreation centers, nursing homes and group homes for persons with a
disability.
Further City Council action will be required to enter into any new agreements, or to
modify any existing contracts, with applicants selected for funding through the open
application process.
Funding for ESG-CV Shelter Operations Proposals
In May of 2021, the Human Services Department (HSD) posted an RFP for
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) CARES Act (ESG-CV) funding. Thirteen of the
proposals received were recommended for award, but there was sufficient funding
available for only 10 of those recommended proposals. $1,692,315 of available CDBG-
CV funds will be used to fund the three unawarded ESG-CV proposals in an effort to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic amongst individuals and
families who are homeless or receiving homeless assistance. The three recommended
but un-awarded are:
· The Salvation Army in the amount of $1,184,767 for Emergency Shelter;
· The Salvation Army in the amount of $307,548 for Street Outreach; and
· CASS in the amount of $200,000 for Rapid Re-housing.
Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, by utilizing procurement in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to implement and administer HUD funded programs
Page 111
intended to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposals
will be accepted until all available funds have been awarded.
Contract Term
The term for the Salvation Army and CASS contracts will begin on or about Feb. 1,
2022, and end on or about May 1, 2023. The term for all other contracts will be
determined at the time of award.
Financial Impact
These programs are funded by HUD through the CARES Act. There is no impact to the
General Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 6, 2020, City Council authorized a Substantial Amendment to the 2015-20
Consolidated Plan's 2019-20 Annual Action Plan to include the first release of
allocations and waivers authorized by the CARES Act.
On Jan. 21, 2021, the Land Use and Livability Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval of broad allocations of ESG-CV2 allocations to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on individuals and families who are
experiencing homelessness or receiving homeless assistance, and to support
homelessness prevention activities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19.
On Feb. 17, 2021, the City Council authorized a Substantial Amendment to the 2015-
20 Consolidated Plan's 2019-20 Annual Action Plan to include the second release of
allocations and waivers authorized by the CARES Act.
On Nov. 3, 2021, the Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee
recommended approval of this item by a 4 to 0 vote.
Public Outreach
As part of the CARES Act, HUD approved an expedited public outreach process to
allow flexibility to institute more streamlined requirements to address immediate needs
relative to COVID-19. The HUD abbreviated process includes the following:
· The reduction of a 30-day public comment period and the implementation of a
public comment period of no less than five days in an effort to expedite the
Consolidated Plan Substantial Amendment process and allow the City to respond
as quickly as possible to the immediate needs in the community; and
· The elimination of the in-person public hearings and the implementation of virtual
Page 112
public hearings when: National and/or local health authorities recommend social
distancing and limiting public gatherings for public health reasons; and virtual
hearings provide reasonable notification and access for citizens in accordance with
Phoenix certifications, timely responses from local officials to all citizen questions
and issues, and public access to all questions and responses.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
and Neighborhood Services departments.
Page 113
Report
48164)
Request the City Council to approve the reallocation of $6 million of available
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act funding, and approval to take all necessary actions and execute
all documents and agreements required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as authorized by CARES Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted
March 27, 2020, for the specific purpose of preventing, preparing for, and responding
to the COVID-19 public health crisis, including amending the 2015-20 Consolidated
Plan's 2019-20 Annual Action Plan as needed. Further request authorization to utilize a
portion of the funds to enter into agreements with the Salvation Army and Central
Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,692,315.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City of Phoenix received two rounds of CARES Act CDBG funding to help Phoenix
residents, businesses, and neighborhoods prevent, prepare for, and respond to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Since May 2020, the City Council has authorized the
Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) to implement multiple programs by
allocating the CARES Act CDBG funds towards support services and shelters for
people experiencing homelessness, COVID-19 relief grant awards to microenterprise
businesses, assistance to local non-profit organizations, and funding Owner Occupied
Rehabilitation shelter-in-place services.
In May 2021, NSD posted a $14 million Request-for-Proposals (RFP) for Shelter
Acquisition and Facility Improvements resulting in two awards for a total of $8 million,
leaving $6 million available to allocate towards new programs to continue to assist our
community to further prevent the spread and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Staff proposes to allocate the available CARES Act CDBG funds into the following
activities to help the community further prevent the spread and respond to the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Page 110
Open Application RFP for Shelter Acquisition Projects
$2 million will be used to fund real property acquisitions of emergency or transitional
shelter facilities to provide expanded shelter beds for individuals and families
experiencing homelessness in the City of Phoenix to prevent, prepare for, and respond
to the COVID-19 pandemic. An open application RFP will provide the applicants
adequate time to identify a project site and be prepared for acquisition prior to
application.
Open Application RFP for COVID-19 Clean Public Facility Improvements and
Upgrades
$2,307,685 will be used to fund improvements to heating, ventilation, air conditioning
(HVAC) systems, antimicrobial surfaces, and touchless fixtures in public facilities to
reduce airborne transmission risks to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-
19 pandemic, focusing on individuals and families with low- and moderate incomes in
the City of Phoenix. The facility must be publicly owned or owned by a nonprofit and
open to the general public. Facilities may include, but are not limited to public schools,
libraries, recreation centers, nursing homes and group homes for persons with a
disability.
Further City Council action will be required to enter into any new agreements, or to
modify any existing contracts, with applicants selected for funding through the open
application process.
Funding for ESG-CV Shelter Operations Proposals
In May of 2021, the Human Services Department (HSD) posted an RFP for
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) CARES Act (ESG-CV) funding. Thirteen of the
proposals received were recommended for award, but there was sufficient funding
available for only 10 of those recommended proposals. $1,692,315 of available CDBG-
CV funds will be used to fund the three unawarded ESG-CV proposals in an effort to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic amongst individuals and
families who are homeless or receiving homeless assistance. The three recommended
but un-awarded are:
· The Salvation Army in the amount of $1,184,767 for Emergency Shelter;
· The Salvation Army in the amount of $307,548 for Street Outreach; and
· CASS in the amount of $200,000 for Rapid Re-housing.
Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, by utilizing procurement in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to implement and administer HUD funded programs
Page 111
intended to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposals
will be accepted until all available funds have been awarded.
Contract Term
The term for the Salvation Army and CASS contracts will begin on or about Feb. 1,
2022, and end on or about May 1, 2023. The term for all other contracts will be
determined at the time of award.
Financial Impact
These programs are funded by HUD through the CARES Act. There is no impact to the
General Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 6, 2020, City Council authorized a Substantial Amendment to the 2015-20
Consolidated Plan's 2019-20 Annual Action Plan to include the first release of
allocations and waivers authorized by the CARES Act.
On Jan. 21, 2021, the Land Use and Livability Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval of broad allocations of ESG-CV2 allocations to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on individuals and families who are
experiencing homelessness or receiving homeless assistance, and to support
homelessness prevention activities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19.
On Feb. 17, 2021, the City Council authorized a Substantial Amendment to the 2015-
20 Consolidated Plan's 2019-20 Annual Action Plan to include the second release of
allocations and waivers authorized by the CARES Act.
On Nov. 3, 2021, the Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee
recommended approval of this item by a 4 to 0 vote.
Public Outreach
As part of the CARES Act, HUD approved an expedited public outreach process to
allow flexibility to institute more streamlined requirements to address immediate needs
relative to COVID-19. The HUD abbreviated process includes the following:
· The reduction of a 30-day public comment period and the implementation of a
public comment period of no less than five days in an effort to expedite the
Consolidated Plan Substantial Amendment process and allow the City to respond
as quickly as possible to the immediate needs in the community; and
· The elimination of the in-person public hearings and the implementation of virtual
Page 112
public hearings when: National and/or local health authorities recommend social
distancing and limiting public gatherings for public health reasons; and virtual
hearings provide reasonable notification and access for citizens in accordance with
Phoenix certifications, timely responses from local officials to all citizen questions
and issues, and public access to all questions and responses.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
and Neighborhood Services departments.
Page 113
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Head Start Birth to Five Program Hearing Screening Assessment Training
Services Qualified Vendors List - RFQu-21-EDU-48 (Ordinance S-48155)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve a Qualified
Vendors List (QVL) and enter into agreements with eligible contractors to provide
hearing screening assessment training services for the Head Start Birth to Five
program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item for the life of the contracts. The aggregate value of all agreements will not
exceed $125,000 over the life of the QVL.
Summary
The Head Start Birth to Five program provides free comprehensive early childhood
development, school readiness, and family support services to eligible low-income
families with children aged zero to five years old and at-risk pregnant women. Head
Start Program Performance Standards require enrolled children to receive an age-
appropriate Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) screening
annually. Hearing screening is an essential portion of the EPSDT screening, as
hearing loss does occur in young children and is often not evident to parents. As a
Head Start grantee, the City of Phoenix Head Start Birth to Five program ensures all
enrolled children receive an evidence-based hearing screening within 45 days of
enrollment, conducted by Head Start Birth to Five staff.
The State of Arizona has passed legislation implementing strict standards for hearing
screening performed by schools and preschools (including Head Start programs). The
legislation requires hearing screenings be performed by trained staff who have
obtained a certificate of completion by a trainer certified by the Arizona Department
Health Services (AZDHS). Head Start must follow strict standards in reporting hearing
screening results to AZDHS on an annual basis.
The Qualified Vendor List is meant to identify highly qualified professionals with the
certification, training and experience to provide the required hearing screening training
to Head Start Birth to Five staff.
Procurement Information
On Aug. 12, 2021, RFQu-21-EDU-48 for Head Start Birth to Five Program Hearing
Page 114
Screening Assessment Training Services was issued to solicit qualified trainers for
hearing screening assessments. The solicitation was conducted in accordance with
received on Sept. 24, 2021. The offer was determined to be responsive and
responsible to the solicitation requirements.
The Evaluation Committee evaluated the offer based on the evaluation criteria,
responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide
the required services. The Evaluation Criteria was as follows:
Criteria and Possible Points
· Method of Approach and Delivery of Training - 500 possible points;
· Experience and Qualifications of Proposed Trainers - 300 possible points; and
· Cost Per Session - 200 possible points.
The Evaluation Committee recommends the following offeror be added to the QVL:
· Family and Community Educational Services of AZ, LLC.
Contract Term
The contract term will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021, and will end on Nov. 30, 2026,
with no option to extend.
Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $125,000 over the life of the QVL. Funding is available
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children,
Youth and Families. No additional General Funds are required.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Oct. 14, 2021, The Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council retroactively approved
the request to release the Hearing Screening Assessment Training Services RFQu.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 115
Report
Services Qualified Vendors List - RFQu-21-EDU-48 (Ordinance S-48155)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve a Qualified
Vendors List (QVL) and enter into agreements with eligible contractors to provide
hearing screening assessment training services for the Head Start Birth to Five
program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item for the life of the contracts. The aggregate value of all agreements will not
exceed $125,000 over the life of the QVL.
Summary
The Head Start Birth to Five program provides free comprehensive early childhood
development, school readiness, and family support services to eligible low-income
families with children aged zero to five years old and at-risk pregnant women. Head
Start Program Performance Standards require enrolled children to receive an age-
appropriate Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) screening
annually. Hearing screening is an essential portion of the EPSDT screening, as
hearing loss does occur in young children and is often not evident to parents. As a
Head Start grantee, the City of Phoenix Head Start Birth to Five program ensures all
enrolled children receive an evidence-based hearing screening within 45 days of
enrollment, conducted by Head Start Birth to Five staff.
The State of Arizona has passed legislation implementing strict standards for hearing
screening performed by schools and preschools (including Head Start programs). The
legislation requires hearing screenings be performed by trained staff who have
obtained a certificate of completion by a trainer certified by the Arizona Department
Health Services (AZDHS). Head Start must follow strict standards in reporting hearing
screening results to AZDHS on an annual basis.
The Qualified Vendor List is meant to identify highly qualified professionals with the
certification, training and experience to provide the required hearing screening training
to Head Start Birth to Five staff.
Procurement Information
On Aug. 12, 2021, RFQu-21-EDU-48 for Head Start Birth to Five Program Hearing
Page 114
Screening Assessment Training Services was issued to solicit qualified trainers for
hearing screening assessments. The solicitation was conducted in accordance with
received on Sept. 24, 2021. The offer was determined to be responsive and
responsible to the solicitation requirements.
The Evaluation Committee evaluated the offer based on the evaluation criteria,
responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide
the required services. The Evaluation Criteria was as follows:
Criteria and Possible Points
· Method of Approach and Delivery of Training - 500 possible points;
· Experience and Qualifications of Proposed Trainers - 300 possible points; and
· Cost Per Session - 200 possible points.
The Evaluation Committee recommends the following offeror be added to the QVL:
· Family and Community Educational Services of AZ, LLC.
Contract Term
The contract term will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021, and will end on Nov. 30, 2026,
with no option to extend.
Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $125,000 over the life of the QVL. Funding is available
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children,
Youth and Families. No additional General Funds are required.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Oct. 14, 2021, The Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council retroactively approved
the request to release the Hearing Screening Assessment Training Services RFQu.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 115
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Amend Contract with Midwest Language Banc, Inc., dba The
Language Banc, Inc. (Ordinance S-48157)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 142704
with Midwest Language Banc, Inc. dba The Language Banc, Inc. to extend the term of
the contract until Feb. 28, 2022. The remaining contract total will not exceed $90,185.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item.
Summary
This contract provides translation services for families enrolled in the City of Phoenix
Head Start Birth to Five Home-Based program who speak languages other than
English and Spanish. Participants of the program are required to participate in weekly
90-minute home visits, attend biweekly socialization events and monthly parent
education opportunities. Services are transitioning from virtual to in-person by Jan. 1,
2022 to align with the Head Start Program’s Performance Standards. The contract
extension will allow families who speak languages other than English and Spanish to
remain engaged in the program while a new contract is being solicited.
There are approximately 11 languages other than English and Spanish spoken by
enrolled families. Translation services are needed to communicate effectively to
ensure families understand the social services offered and receive the maximum
benefit of the educational component.
Contract Term
The original contract term was for three years beginning July 1, 2016, through June
30, 2019, with one two-year renewal option to be exercised by the City Manager. The
City exercised the two-year renewal option on March 6, 2019, with a contract end date
of June 30, 2021. City Council approved a six-month extension on May 19, 2021, by
Ordinance S-47574 extending the term to Dec. 31, 2021. Approval of this request
would extend the term to Feb. 28, 2022.
Financial Impact
The total contract value remains the same, as no additional funding is requested.
Funds are available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Page 116
Administration of Children, Youth and Families. There is no impact to the General
Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on April 4, 2016, by Ordinance S-
42448 in an amount not to exceed $250,000, $90,185 of which remains available. City
Council approved a two-year contract extension on March 6, 2019 by Ordinance S-
45416. City Council approved a six-month extension on May 19, 2021, by Ordinance S
-47574.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 117
Report
Language Banc, Inc. (Ordinance S-48157)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 142704
with Midwest Language Banc, Inc. dba The Language Banc, Inc. to extend the term of
the contract until Feb. 28, 2022. The remaining contract total will not exceed $90,185.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item.
Summary
This contract provides translation services for families enrolled in the City of Phoenix
Head Start Birth to Five Home-Based program who speak languages other than
English and Spanish. Participants of the program are required to participate in weekly
90-minute home visits, attend biweekly socialization events and monthly parent
education opportunities. Services are transitioning from virtual to in-person by Jan. 1,
2022 to align with the Head Start Program’s Performance Standards. The contract
extension will allow families who speak languages other than English and Spanish to
remain engaged in the program while a new contract is being solicited.
There are approximately 11 languages other than English and Spanish spoken by
enrolled families. Translation services are needed to communicate effectively to
ensure families understand the social services offered and receive the maximum
benefit of the educational component.
Contract Term
The original contract term was for three years beginning July 1, 2016, through June
30, 2019, with one two-year renewal option to be exercised by the City Manager. The
City exercised the two-year renewal option on March 6, 2019, with a contract end date
of June 30, 2021. City Council approved a six-month extension on May 19, 2021, by
Ordinance S-47574 extending the term to Dec. 31, 2021. Approval of this request
would extend the term to Feb. 28, 2022.
Financial Impact
The total contract value remains the same, as no additional funding is requested.
Funds are available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Page 116
Administration of Children, Youth and Families. There is no impact to the General
Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on April 4, 2016, by Ordinance S-
42448 in an amount not to exceed $250,000, $90,185 of which remains available. City
Council approved a two-year contract extension on March 6, 2019 by Ordinance S-
45416. City Council approved a six-month extension on May 19, 2021, by Ordinance S
-47574.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 117
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa
County Community College District for American Rescue Plan Act Workforce
Program (Ordinance S-48163)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa County Community College District
(MCCCD) to provide training, education and workforce navigation services to Phoenix
residents enrolled in an American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)-eligible program with
MCCCD colleges. The total agreement amount will not exceed $1.5 million over the life
of the agreement. Further, request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.
Summary
MCCCD’s Workforce and Economic Development Office will provide Phoenix residents
with opportunities to advance in their careers while addressing barriers to accessing
training and employment such as childcare and transportation. Training, education and
workforce navigation services will be provided to Phoenix residents enrolled in an
ARPA-eligible program at the Maricopa County Community Colleges.
Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2022, and end on Dec. 31,
2024.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s
allocation of ARPA funding and is under the City’s Workforce Wraparound Tuition
Assistance/Apprentice Program category of the strategic plan.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 118
Report
County Community College District for American Rescue Plan Act Workforce
Program (Ordinance S-48163)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa County Community College District
(MCCCD) to provide training, education and workforce navigation services to Phoenix
residents enrolled in an American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)-eligible program with
MCCCD colleges. The total agreement amount will not exceed $1.5 million over the life
of the agreement. Further, request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.
Summary
MCCCD’s Workforce and Economic Development Office will provide Phoenix residents
with opportunities to advance in their careers while addressing barriers to accessing
training and employment such as childcare and transportation. Training, education and
workforce navigation services will be provided to Phoenix residents enrolled in an
ARPA-eligible program at the Maricopa County Community Colleges.
Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2022, and end on Dec. 31,
2024.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s
allocation of ARPA funding and is under the City’s Workforce Wraparound Tuition
Assistance/Apprentice Program category of the strategic plan.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 118
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Fitness Equipment Purchase, Repair and Preventative Maintenance- MESC 17H-
GSRC-0930 (A) (Ordinance S-48166)
Request to authorize the City manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 147449 with Gym Source USA, LLC for fitness equipment
purchase and preventative maintenance services for the Parks and Recreation
Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $150,000.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department operates multiple community centers that
provide City residents the use of various fitness equipment, such as free and circuit
weights and miscellaneous cardio fitness machines. The additional funding request is
needed to furnish the new Cesar Chavez Community Center. These fitness centers
are essential to the operations of the Parks and Recreation Department, in continuing
to provide core services to City residents.
Contract Term
The contract term is May 15, 2018 through May 14, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $150,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $300,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on April 18, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 119
Report
GSRC-0930 (A) (Ordinance S-48166)
Request to authorize the City manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 147449 with Gym Source USA, LLC for fitness equipment
purchase and preventative maintenance services for the Parks and Recreation
Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $150,000.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department operates multiple community centers that
provide City residents the use of various fitness equipment, such as free and circuit
weights and miscellaneous cardio fitness machines. The additional funding request is
needed to furnish the new Cesar Chavez Community Center. These fitness centers
are essential to the operations of the Parks and Recreation Department, in continuing
to provide core services to City residents.
Contract Term
The contract term is May 15, 2018 through May 14, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $150,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $300,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on April 18, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 119
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
USA Swimming Foundation Grant (Ordinance S-48167)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and, if awarded,
accept funds in an amount of up to $25,000 and enter into an agreement with USA
Swimming Foundation, to offer reduced or free swimming lessons at various City pool
locations. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the
City Controller to disburse, any grant monies awarded. There is no impact to the
General Fund.
Summary
Annually, the Parks and Recreation Department provides close to 20,000 residents
swimming lessons at 29 facilities. The Parks and Recreation Department is seeking to
apply for the USA Swimming Foundation grant to help provide reduced or free
swimming lessons for both children and adults. If awarded the full $25,000 grant,
funding would provide sufficient funds to offer free or reduced swim lessons for up to
2,000 participants. If awarded, funding would be distributed to offer free or reduced
swim lessons at select swimming pools ensuring geographic coverage in all parts of
the City. The 2021 grant cycle is currently open and closes Dec. 15, 2021.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. There is no match requirement.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 120
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and, if awarded,
accept funds in an amount of up to $25,000 and enter into an agreement with USA
Swimming Foundation, to offer reduced or free swimming lessons at various City pool
locations. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the
City Controller to disburse, any grant monies awarded. There is no impact to the
General Fund.
Summary
Annually, the Parks and Recreation Department provides close to 20,000 residents
swimming lessons at 29 facilities. The Parks and Recreation Department is seeking to
apply for the USA Swimming Foundation grant to help provide reduced or free
swimming lessons for both children and adults. If awarded the full $25,000 grant,
funding would provide sufficient funds to offer free or reduced swim lessons for up to
2,000 participants. If awarded, funding would be distributed to offer free or reduced
swim lessons at select swimming pools ensuring geographic coverage in all parts of
the City. The 2021 grant cycle is currently open and closes Dec. 15, 2021.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. There is no match requirement.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 120
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(CONTINUED FROM NOV. 17, 2021) - Downtown Camera Project (Ordinance S-
48123)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to replace and redesign the
security camera system in the City’s downtown core. These cameras are critical to the
City’s overall security posture, protect the City’s critical infrastructure, and support the
public’s safety and security during large-scale events in the downtown core. As the
cameras continue to fail and have exceeded end of life and must be replaced. The
downtown camera project is scalable and will be implemented in phases. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The first phase is expected to cost approximately $600,000, while the entire project is
expected to cost approximately $1.6 million to complete.
Summary
Between 2008-2012, the Phoenix Police Department's Homeland Defense Bureau’s
Threat Mitigation Unit utilized grant funding to begin incrementally building a downtown
camera capability within the City’s downtown core complex (defined as Jackson Street
to the I-10 Freeway, 7th Avenue to 7th Street). Over time, the Homeland Security
Grant Program funding was reduced and remains a highly competitive process. The
Department of Justice/Federal Emergency Management Agency has also placed an
increased emphasis on ensuring a regional benefit of all projects funded. This change
in guidance no longer makes it possible for the City of Phoenix to utilize Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI) funding to sustain and grow the downtown camera system.
Of the original 60 cameras installed only about 25 remain in varying states of
operational condition. As the City of Phoenix prepares for the upcoming Super Bowl
and multiple high-profile activities that will take place in the downtown core, access to
a comprehensive camera network is critical to effectively manage public safety and the
preservation of our City’s critical infrastructure.
The proposed project includes:
· The replacement of approximately 33 Homeland Defense Bureau cameras
(approximate cost $200,000).
Page 121
· Installation of 15 cameras in the downtown core on a wireless transmission system
(approximate cost $200,000).
· Adding necessary IT infrastructure, servers and storage (approximate cost
$200,000).
Once funding is approved, the Homeland Defense Bureau’s Threat Mitigation Unit will
partner with Public Works and Information Technology Services (ITS) for specific
quotes and development of a deployment and installation plan. ITS is aware of this
project; however, there is no current impact until the purchasing phase for the
requested equipment.
Procurement Information
The items required for this project will be purchased utilizing existing City of Phoenix
contract vendors. No competitive process will be required however, amendments to
increase contract spending limits may be required in the future with dates to be
determined.
Financial Impact
The initial cost of this project is $600,000.The total project projected investment costs
are estimated to be $1.6 million to complete. Funds are available in the Phoenix Police
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for City Council approval by the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee on Nov. 10, 2021 by a vote of 3-1.
Location
Downtown core, Jackson Street to the I-10 Freeway, 7th Avenue to 7th Street.
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 122
Report
48123)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to replace and redesign the
security camera system in the City’s downtown core. These cameras are critical to the
City’s overall security posture, protect the City’s critical infrastructure, and support the
public’s safety and security during large-scale events in the downtown core. As the
cameras continue to fail and have exceeded end of life and must be replaced. The
downtown camera project is scalable and will be implemented in phases. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The first phase is expected to cost approximately $600,000, while the entire project is
expected to cost approximately $1.6 million to complete.
Summary
Between 2008-2012, the Phoenix Police Department's Homeland Defense Bureau’s
Threat Mitigation Unit utilized grant funding to begin incrementally building a downtown
camera capability within the City’s downtown core complex (defined as Jackson Street
to the I-10 Freeway, 7th Avenue to 7th Street). Over time, the Homeland Security
Grant Program funding was reduced and remains a highly competitive process. The
Department of Justice/Federal Emergency Management Agency has also placed an
increased emphasis on ensuring a regional benefit of all projects funded. This change
in guidance no longer makes it possible for the City of Phoenix to utilize Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI) funding to sustain and grow the downtown camera system.
Of the original 60 cameras installed only about 25 remain in varying states of
operational condition. As the City of Phoenix prepares for the upcoming Super Bowl
and multiple high-profile activities that will take place in the downtown core, access to
a comprehensive camera network is critical to effectively manage public safety and the
preservation of our City’s critical infrastructure.
The proposed project includes:
· The replacement of approximately 33 Homeland Defense Bureau cameras
(approximate cost $200,000).
Page 121
· Installation of 15 cameras in the downtown core on a wireless transmission system
(approximate cost $200,000).
· Adding necessary IT infrastructure, servers and storage (approximate cost
$200,000).
Once funding is approved, the Homeland Defense Bureau’s Threat Mitigation Unit will
partner with Public Works and Information Technology Services (ITS) for specific
quotes and development of a deployment and installation plan. ITS is aware of this
project; however, there is no current impact until the purchasing phase for the
requested equipment.
Procurement Information
The items required for this project will be purchased utilizing existing City of Phoenix
contract vendors. No competitive process will be required however, amendments to
increase contract spending limits may be required in the future with dates to be
determined.
Financial Impact
The initial cost of this project is $600,000.The total project projected investment costs
are estimated to be $1.6 million to complete. Funds are available in the Phoenix Police
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for City Council approval by the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee on Nov. 10, 2021 by a vote of 3-1.
Location
Downtown core, Jackson Street to the I-10 Freeway, 7th Avenue to 7th Street.
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 122
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Donation from Phoenix Police Foundation (Ordinance S-48137)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept a donation from the
Phoenix Police Foundation of $24,750 for the purchase of new scheduling software
provided by InTime Services Inc. for the Communications Bureau. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all
funds related to this item.
Summary
The purchase of a new scheduling software would allow the Communications Bureau
to be more efficient with scheduling and overtime spending. InTime Services Inc. is
software which allows for automated staffing to reduce human error, overtime
expenditures, and the amount of time supervisors spend on staffing assignments, so
more time is focused on operational oversight. The software allows for analyzing
staffing trends and better projection of future staffing allocation needs. If this grant is
approved, the funding would pay the first-year subscription fee and the
Communications Bureau would budget for future years.
The Phoenix Police Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. The Foundation
is committed to addressing unmet needs of the Phoenix Police Department, providing
financial assistance in crisis situations and recognizing those who protect our
community.
Procurement Information
InTime Services Inc. was identified as a sole source vendor due to the auto-scheduling
feature, which will significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to process staffing
for a given interval. Currently it takes a FTE to complete staffing for a single day where
InTime can do that in minutes with a click of a button.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Nov. 17, 2021, and will be for one year. After that,
the Phoenix Police Department will come back to City Council to seek a five year
extension.
Page 123
Financial Impact
The cost for the first year is $24,750 and $19,200 each year after that. The donation
from the Police Foundation will pay for the first year and the Communications Bureau
will budget for future years.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee by a vote of 3-0 at the Sept. 8, 2021 meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 124
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept a donation from the
Phoenix Police Foundation of $24,750 for the purchase of new scheduling software
provided by InTime Services Inc. for the Communications Bureau. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all
funds related to this item.
Summary
The purchase of a new scheduling software would allow the Communications Bureau
to be more efficient with scheduling and overtime spending. InTime Services Inc. is
software which allows for automated staffing to reduce human error, overtime
expenditures, and the amount of time supervisors spend on staffing assignments, so
more time is focused on operational oversight. The software allows for analyzing
staffing trends and better projection of future staffing allocation needs. If this grant is
approved, the funding would pay the first-year subscription fee and the
Communications Bureau would budget for future years.
The Phoenix Police Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. The Foundation
is committed to addressing unmet needs of the Phoenix Police Department, providing
financial assistance in crisis situations and recognizing those who protect our
community.
Procurement Information
InTime Services Inc. was identified as a sole source vendor due to the auto-scheduling
feature, which will significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to process staffing
for a given interval. Currently it takes a FTE to complete staffing for a single day where
InTime can do that in minutes with a click of a button.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Nov. 17, 2021, and will be for one year. After that,
the Phoenix Police Department will come back to City Council to seek a five year
extension.
Page 123
Financial Impact
The cost for the first year is $24,750 and $19,200 each year after that. The donation
from the Police Foundation will pay for the first year and the Communications Bureau
will budget for future years.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee by a vote of 3-0 at the Sept. 8, 2021 meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 124
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Helicopter Pilot Training and Certification - Requirements Contract - RFP 22-016
(Ordinance S-48141)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Delta Leasing LLC dba Quantum Helicopters to purchase Helicopter Pilot Training and
Certification for the Phoenix Police Department. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value
will not exceed $800,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Police Department's Air Support Unit provides effective airborne
surveillance and patrol support to bureaus and precincts of the Police Department for
critical occurrences and emergency response requirements. A critical component of
meeting the Air Support's mission is to ensure that personnel is adequately trained to
operate and mechanically maintain its fleet of helicopters safely and effectively. In
addition, pilots are continually being assessed to determine how their skills are
progressing and what further training they may need. This contract will provide
helicopter pilot training by a facility certified by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in accordance with title 14 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 61, 141,
and 147.
Procurement Information
RFP 22-016 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were four (4) offers received by the Procurement Division on Aug. 19, 2021. The
notification was sent to forty-two (42) suppliers and was publicly posted and available
for download from the City's website.
The proposal was scored by a three-member evaluation panel based on the following
criteria:
Experience and Qualifications - 400
Method of Approach - 375
Price - 225
The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the offer from Delta leasing LLC dba
Page 125
Quantum Helicopters be accepted as the highest scored, responsive, and responsible
offer most advantageous to the City.
Contract Term
The five-year contract will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $800,000. Funds are available in the
Phoenix Police Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Phoenix Police
Department.
Page 126
Report
(Ordinance S-48141)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Delta Leasing LLC dba Quantum Helicopters to purchase Helicopter Pilot Training and
Certification for the Phoenix Police Department. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value
will not exceed $800,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Police Department's Air Support Unit provides effective airborne
surveillance and patrol support to bureaus and precincts of the Police Department for
critical occurrences and emergency response requirements. A critical component of
meeting the Air Support's mission is to ensure that personnel is adequately trained to
operate and mechanically maintain its fleet of helicopters safely and effectively. In
addition, pilots are continually being assessed to determine how their skills are
progressing and what further training they may need. This contract will provide
helicopter pilot training by a facility certified by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in accordance with title 14 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 61, 141,
and 147.
Procurement Information
RFP 22-016 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were four (4) offers received by the Procurement Division on Aug. 19, 2021. The
notification was sent to forty-two (42) suppliers and was publicly posted and available
for download from the City's website.
The proposal was scored by a three-member evaluation panel based on the following
criteria:
Experience and Qualifications - 400
Method of Approach - 375
Price - 225
The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the offer from Delta leasing LLC dba
Page 125
Quantum Helicopters be accepted as the highest scored, responsive, and responsible
offer most advantageous to the City.
Contract Term
The five-year contract will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $800,000. Funds are available in the
Phoenix Police Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Phoenix Police
Department.
Page 126
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
RADAR and LIDAR Units Repair and Maintenance - Requirements Contract RFA
18-143A (Ordinance S-48152)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148378 with Arizona Law Enforcement Radar Tech for
the purchase of annual inspections, testing, calibration and repairs of RADAR units
and LIDAR units for the Phoenix Police Department. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $60,000.
Summary
This contract was originally adopted to account for the cost of repairs/certifications for
the equipment belonging to the Traffic Bureau. The Police Department is requesting to
add funding to expand coverage to repair and certify the entire Police Department's
RADAR/LIDAR inventory.
Contract Term
The contract term is Sept. 5, 2018 through Aug. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of the $60,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $150,000. Funds are available in the Police Department's
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Aug. 29, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 127
Report
18-143A (Ordinance S-48152)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148378 with Arizona Law Enforcement Radar Tech for
the purchase of annual inspections, testing, calibration and repairs of RADAR units
and LIDAR units for the Phoenix Police Department. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $60,000.
Summary
This contract was originally adopted to account for the cost of repairs/certifications for
the equipment belonging to the Traffic Bureau. The Police Department is requesting to
add funding to expand coverage to repair and certify the entire Police Department's
RADAR/LIDAR inventory.
Contract Term
The contract term is Sept. 5, 2018 through Aug. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of the $60,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $150,000. Funds are available in the Police Department's
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Aug. 29, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 127
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Purchase of One Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighting Truck (Ordinance S-48156)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
OshKosh Airport Products, LLC for the purchase of one Airfield Rescue and Fire
Fighting (ARFF) truck. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. This item will have an aggregate expenditure of up to
$2,159,385.
Summary
The Public Works Department seeks authorization to purchase an 8x8 ARFF striker
truck to replace an aging unit that has exceeded its 15-year life cycle. This unit will be
used in conjunction with five additional trucks at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport in
accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation Part 139 that
mandates the City's certification of the fleet. ARFF trucks are essential to airfield
rescue and required to support air carrier operations.
Procurement Information
Administrative Regulation 3.10 was waived in lieu of a determination memo, citing sole
source. OshKosh Airport Products is the only manufacturer of an 8x8 ARFF striker.
The following price is for the purchase of one 8x8 striker:
OshKosh Airport Products: $2,013,353.94
Contract Term
This contract will be for the one-time purchase of an 8x8 ARFF truck, that will begin on
or about City Council approval on Dec. 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
This item will have a one-time aggregate value of up to $2,159,385. The Public Works
Department is seeking additional aggregate pay authority above the vendor's quoted
price to plan for possible build changes.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget.
Page 128
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and Deputy City Manager
Karen Peters, and the Fire and Public Works departments.
Page 129
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
OshKosh Airport Products, LLC for the purchase of one Airfield Rescue and Fire
Fighting (ARFF) truck. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. This item will have an aggregate expenditure of up to
$2,159,385.
Summary
The Public Works Department seeks authorization to purchase an 8x8 ARFF striker
truck to replace an aging unit that has exceeded its 15-year life cycle. This unit will be
used in conjunction with five additional trucks at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport in
accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation Part 139 that
mandates the City's certification of the fleet. ARFF trucks are essential to airfield
rescue and required to support air carrier operations.
Procurement Information
Administrative Regulation 3.10 was waived in lieu of a determination memo, citing sole
source. OshKosh Airport Products is the only manufacturer of an 8x8 ARFF striker.
The following price is for the purchase of one 8x8 striker:
OshKosh Airport Products: $2,013,353.94
Contract Term
This contract will be for the one-time purchase of an 8x8 ARFF truck, that will begin on
or about City Council approval on Dec. 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
This item will have a one-time aggregate value of up to $2,159,385. The Public Works
Department is seeking additional aggregate pay authority above the vendor's quoted
price to plan for possible build changes.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget.
Page 128
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and Deputy City Manager
Karen Peters, and the Fire and Public Works departments.
Page 129
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Program - Job Order Contracting Services - 4108JOC189
(Ordinance S-48134)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with three contractors to provide Fire Hydrant Repair and Replacement
Job Order Contracting (JOC) services for the Water Services Department. Further
request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within
the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not
exceed $19.23 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
deemed necessary to execute all utilities-related design and construction agreements,
licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the development, design,
and construction of the project and to include disbursement of funds. Utility services
include, but are not limited to: electrical; water; sewer; natural gas;
telecommunications; cable television; railroads; and other modes of transportation.
This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The JOC contractors' services will be used on an as-needed basis to provide Fire
Hydrant Repair and Replacement Job Order Contracting services for assessment,
maintenance, repair and/or replacement of fire hydrants and other associated work
citywide. The Water Services and Fire departments presented to the Transportation,
Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee on Nov. 17, 2021 regarding the Fire
Hydrant Repair and Replacement Program and the planned use of this contract to
address the existing backlog in fire hydrant replacements. All three contractors will be
used to ensure that the backlog is completed as soon as possible. Additionally, the
JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business Enterprise program
requirements.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Page 130
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: WaCo, LLC
Rank 2: Hydra Contracting, LLC
Rank 3: Talis Construction Corporation
Additional Proposers
Rank 4: Blucor Contracting, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $6.41 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The master agreement values for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $6.41
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $19.23 million. The value for each Job Order Agreement (JOA)
performed under this master agreement will be up to $2 million each. In no event will
any JOA exceed this limit without Council approval to increase the limit.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee received a presentation
on the Fire Hydrant Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Program on Nov. 17, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Managers
Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua, the Water Services and Fire departments, and the
City Engineer.
Page 131
Report
Replacement Program - Job Order Contracting Services - 4108JOC189
(Ordinance S-48134)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with three contractors to provide Fire Hydrant Repair and Replacement
Job Order Contracting (JOC) services for the Water Services Department. Further
request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within
the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not
exceed $19.23 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
deemed necessary to execute all utilities-related design and construction agreements,
licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the development, design,
and construction of the project and to include disbursement of funds. Utility services
include, but are not limited to: electrical; water; sewer; natural gas;
telecommunications; cable television; railroads; and other modes of transportation.
This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The JOC contractors' services will be used on an as-needed basis to provide Fire
Hydrant Repair and Replacement Job Order Contracting services for assessment,
maintenance, repair and/or replacement of fire hydrants and other associated work
citywide. The Water Services and Fire departments presented to the Transportation,
Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee on Nov. 17, 2021 regarding the Fire
Hydrant Repair and Replacement Program and the planned use of this contract to
address the existing backlog in fire hydrant replacements. All three contractors will be
used to ensure that the backlog is completed as soon as possible. Additionally, the
JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business Enterprise program
requirements.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Page 130
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: WaCo, LLC
Rank 2: Hydra Contracting, LLC
Rank 3: Talis Construction Corporation
Additional Proposers
Rank 4: Blucor Contracting, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $6.41 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The master agreement values for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $6.41
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $19.23 million. The value for each Job Order Agreement (JOA)
performed under this master agreement will be up to $2 million each. In no event will
any JOA exceed this limit without Council approval to increase the limit.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee received a presentation
on the Fire Hydrant Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Program on Nov. 17, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Managers
Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua, the Water Services and Fire departments, and the
City Engineer.
Page 131
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Program - Construction Administration and Inspection Services -
WS85500394 (Ordinance S-48135)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc. to provide Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Program Construction Administration and Inspection Services for the
Water Services Department. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to
the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $1.5 Million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
deemed necessary to execute all utilities-related design and construction agreements,
licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the development, design
and construction of the project and to include disbursement of funds. Utility services
include, but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication,
cable television, railroads and other modes of transportation. This authorization
excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide support for the Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Job Order Contracting (JOC) program by ensuring the JOC contractor's
assessment, maintenance, repair and/or replacement of fire hydrants is completed to
the required standards and to document all activities performed by the JOC. The Water
Services and Fire departments presented to the Transportation, Infrastructure and
Planning Subcommittee on Nov. 17, 2021 regarding the Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Program and the planned use of the JOC to address the backlog in fire
hydrant replacements.
Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to:
weekly inspection of fire hydrant replacements and repairs; lab and field materials
testing; resident engineering services; contract administration; monitoring job progress;
review and certification of progress payments and Job Order Agreements; collecting
asset management data from the JOC and providing it to staff per City requirements;
Page 132
preparation of records; public information and public relations services, and other
services as required for a complete project.
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: Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc.
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: GHD, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc. will not exceed
$1.5 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.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee received a presentation
on the Fire Hydrant Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Program on Nov. 17, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Managers
Karen Peters, and Mario Paniagua, the Fire and Water Services departments, and the
City Engineer.
Page 133
Report
Replacement Program - Construction Administration and Inspection Services -
WS85500394 (Ordinance S-48135)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc. to provide Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Program Construction Administration and Inspection Services for the
Water Services Department. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to
the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $1.5 Million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
deemed necessary to execute all utilities-related design and construction agreements,
licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the development, design
and construction of the project and to include disbursement of funds. Utility services
include, but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication,
cable television, railroads and other modes of transportation. This authorization
excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide support for the Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Job Order Contracting (JOC) program by ensuring the JOC contractor's
assessment, maintenance, repair and/or replacement of fire hydrants is completed to
the required standards and to document all activities performed by the JOC. The Water
Services and Fire departments presented to the Transportation, Infrastructure and
Planning Subcommittee on Nov. 17, 2021 regarding the Fire Hydrant Repair and
Replacement Program and the planned use of the JOC to address the backlog in fire
hydrant replacements.
Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to:
weekly inspection of fire hydrant replacements and repairs; lab and field materials
testing; resident engineering services; contract administration; monitoring job progress;
review and certification of progress payments and Job Order Agreements; collecting
asset management data from the JOC and providing it to staff per City requirements;
Page 132
preparation of records; public information and public relations services, and other
services as required for a complete project.
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: Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc.
Additional Proposer
Rank 2: GHD, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc. will not exceed
$1.5 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.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee received a presentation
on the Fire Hydrant Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Program on Nov. 17, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Managers
Karen Peters, and Mario Paniagua, the Fire and Water Services departments, and the
City Engineer.
Page 133
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Airport Security Badge Identification Management System - Request to Issue a
Request for Proposals
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals for an Airport Security Badge Identification Management System at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport.
Summary
The Airport Security Badge Identification System will be used by the Aviation
Department’s Security Badging Office to manage documentation and information
related to more than 20,000 badge holders at the airport. The system provides a
streamlined interface to airport companies and badge applicants to ensure compliance
with all federal regulatory requirements such as TSA-mandated airport security badge
requirements, Security Threat Assessments and Criminal History Records Checks.
Contract Term
The current contract expires on June 14, 2023. The successful proposer will be
responsible for implementing a new Security Badging Identity Management System by
June 2023 to replace the department’s existing system, and providing five years of
system maintenance and support.
Financial Impact
The total estimated cost including initial implementation and five-year maintenance
and support is $5,117,000.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval on Oct. 21, 2021, by a
vote of 7-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Security Badging Office - 3300 E. Sky
Harbor Blvd.
Council Districts: 8
Page 134
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 135
Report
Request for Proposals
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals for an Airport Security Badge Identification Management System at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport.
Summary
The Airport Security Badge Identification System will be used by the Aviation
Department’s Security Badging Office to manage documentation and information
related to more than 20,000 badge holders at the airport. The system provides a
streamlined interface to airport companies and badge applicants to ensure compliance
with all federal regulatory requirements such as TSA-mandated airport security badge
requirements, Security Threat Assessments and Criminal History Records Checks.
Contract Term
The current contract expires on June 14, 2023. The successful proposer will be
responsible for implementing a new Security Badging Identity Management System by
June 2023 to replace the department’s existing system, and providing five years of
system maintenance and support.
Financial Impact
The total estimated cost including initial implementation and five-year maintenance
and support is $5,117,000.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval on Oct. 21, 2021, by a
vote of 7-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Security Badging Office - 3300 E. Sky
Harbor Blvd.
Council Districts: 8
Page 134
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 135
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Air Service Consulting Services - Request to Issue a Request for Proposals
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals for Air Service Consulting Services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport.
Summary
In order to maintain strong international and domestic air service, and to mitigate the
impact of COVID-19, the Aviation Department requires experienced air service
development firms to assist with the implementation of its air service strategy. Such
firms provide detailed route, airline, and market data; analysis and recommendations;
industry intelligence; airline meeting facilitations scenario assessments; and support
with local, state and federal issues relating to air service.
Contract Term
The contract is expected to begin on our about Aug. 10, 2022 for an initial three-year
term, with two one-year options to extend for a five-year aggregate contract term.
Financial Impact
The contract value is not expected to exceed $2 million for the five-year aggregate
contract term.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval on Oct. 21, 2021, by a
vote of 7-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 136
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals for Air Service Consulting Services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport.
Summary
In order to maintain strong international and domestic air service, and to mitigate the
impact of COVID-19, the Aviation Department requires experienced air service
development firms to assist with the implementation of its air service strategy. Such
firms provide detailed route, airline, and market data; analysis and recommendations;
industry intelligence; airline meeting facilitations scenario assessments; and support
with local, state and federal issues relating to air service.
Contract Term
The contract is expected to begin on our about Aug. 10, 2022 for an initial three-year
term, with two one-year options to extend for a five-year aggregate contract term.
Financial Impact
The contract value is not expected to exceed $2 million for the five-year aggregate
contract term.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval on Oct. 21, 2021, by a
vote of 7-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 136
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Facility Lease with CAE Civil Aviation Training Solutions, Inc. at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport - Amendment (Ordinance S-48161)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Lease 153742 with
CAE Civil Aviation Training Solutions, Inc. (CAE) to specify the maximum amount of
square footage available to lease is 164,870.
Summary
On Feb. 5, 2021, the City and CAE entered into a Facility Lease Agreement 153742 to
lease 48,498 square feet of office, parking and simulator bay space located at 1950
East Buckeye Road, Phoenix, Arizona for the purpose of commercial pilot training. The
City and CAE wish to specify that 164,870 is the maximum amount of square footage
available to lease on an as needed basis in the facility effective Feb. 5, 2021.
Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending Feb. 4, 2026.
Financial Impact
Any additional square footage added to the leasehold will be billed at the current lease
rent rate of $18.70 per square foot annually, $0.48 per square foot monthly for
electricity, and $0.04 per square foot monthly for water.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Lease 153742 (Ordinance S-47022) on Oct. 21, 2020.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 1950 East Buckeye Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 137
Report
Harbor International Airport - Amendment (Ordinance S-48161)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Lease 153742 with
CAE Civil Aviation Training Solutions, Inc. (CAE) to specify the maximum amount of
square footage available to lease is 164,870.
Summary
On Feb. 5, 2021, the City and CAE entered into a Facility Lease Agreement 153742 to
lease 48,498 square feet of office, parking and simulator bay space located at 1950
East Buckeye Road, Phoenix, Arizona for the purpose of commercial pilot training. The
City and CAE wish to specify that 164,870 is the maximum amount of square footage
available to lease on an as needed basis in the facility effective Feb. 5, 2021.
Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending Feb. 4, 2026.
Financial Impact
Any additional square footage added to the leasehold will be billed at the current lease
rent rate of $18.70 per square foot annually, $0.48 per square foot monthly for
electricity, and $0.04 per square foot monthly for water.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Lease 153742 (Ordinance S-47022) on Oct. 21, 2020.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 1950 East Buckeye Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Page 137
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Purchase of Three Cuda Part Washers (Ordinance S-48153)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Boyd Equipment, Inc. for the purchase of three Cuda part washers. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This item will
have an aggregate amount of $35,784.
Summary
The Public Works Department, Fleet Services Division currently uses Cuda part
washers at all service locations to remove grease and oil from automotive and heavy-
duty truck parts before reinstalling on City vehicles and equipment. The City currently
has a preventative maintenance contract with Boyd Equipment to keep the Cuda part
washers in good working order and to replace the highly concentrated detergent found
in the machines. City technicians use these washers to clean core parts before
returning to equipment vendors.
Procurement Information
Administrative Regulation 3.10 was waived in lieu of a determination memo citing
without competition due to special circumstances. Currently, the City has a
maintenance contract for part washers, and to keep the regular preventative
maintenance schedule in place, Cuda washers are being requested. The below price
is for one washer.
Boyd Equipment: $11,928 including tax.
Contract Term
This item will be for the one-time purchase of three washers starting on or about City
Council approval, Dec. 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The item will have an aggregate value of $35,784 for the one-time purchase of three
Cuda part washers. Funds are available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Location
Salt River Service Center - 3045 S. 22nd Ave.
Page 138
Southern Command Service Center - 3443 S. Central Ave.
Okemah Service Center - 3838 E. Anne St.
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 139
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Boyd Equipment, Inc. for the purchase of three Cuda part washers. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This item will
have an aggregate amount of $35,784.
Summary
The Public Works Department, Fleet Services Division currently uses Cuda part
washers at all service locations to remove grease and oil from automotive and heavy-
duty truck parts before reinstalling on City vehicles and equipment. The City currently
has a preventative maintenance contract with Boyd Equipment to keep the Cuda part
washers in good working order and to replace the highly concentrated detergent found
in the machines. City technicians use these washers to clean core parts before
returning to equipment vendors.
Procurement Information
Administrative Regulation 3.10 was waived in lieu of a determination memo citing
without competition due to special circumstances. Currently, the City has a
maintenance contract for part washers, and to keep the regular preventative
maintenance schedule in place, Cuda washers are being requested. The below price
is for one washer.
Boyd Equipment: $11,928 including tax.
Contract Term
This item will be for the one-time purchase of three washers starting on or about City
Council approval, Dec. 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The item will have an aggregate value of $35,784 for the one-time purchase of three
Cuda part washers. Funds are available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Location
Salt River Service Center - 3045 S. 22nd Ave.
Page 138
Southern Command Service Center - 3443 S. Central Ave.
Okemah Service Center - 3838 E. Anne St.
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 139
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Two-Way Radios - Requirements Contract Cooperative Agreement ADSPO13-
00213 (Ordinance S-48159)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and continue using
Ordinance S-43078 under Contract 144157 with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the
purchase of two-way radios, accessories, services, and support. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional
funds are needed.
Summary
The contract provides departments Citywide with the ability to purchase two-way
radios and a wide range of accessories, services and support. Industry standards
mandate five- to seven-year replacement cycles for radios and approximately 75
percent of the radio equipment is for public safety purposes. City departments also
have ongoing two-way radio equipment needs to ensure reliable communication for
their daily operations. This extension is necessary to allow additional time to establish
a new cooperative purchasing agreement for these products and services.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Nov. 28, 2022.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of this contract is $27,500,000 and no additional funds are
needed for the extension. Funds are available in the various City departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on March 6, 2013; supplemental
actions include Ordinance S-40375 approved on Nov. 20, 2013 and Ordinance S-
43078 approved on Dec. 14, 2016.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 140
Report
00213 (Ordinance S-48159)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and continue using
Ordinance S-43078 under Contract 144157 with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the
purchase of two-way radios, accessories, services, and support. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional
funds are needed.
Summary
The contract provides departments Citywide with the ability to purchase two-way
radios and a wide range of accessories, services and support. Industry standards
mandate five- to seven-year replacement cycles for radios and approximately 75
percent of the radio equipment is for public safety purposes. City departments also
have ongoing two-way radio equipment needs to ensure reliable communication for
their daily operations. This extension is necessary to allow additional time to establish
a new cooperative purchasing agreement for these products and services.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Nov. 28, 2022.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of this contract is $27,500,000 and no additional funds are
needed for the extension. Funds are available in the various City departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on March 6, 2013; supplemental
actions include Ordinance S-40375 approved on Nov. 20, 2013 and Ordinance S-
43078 approved on Dec. 14, 2016.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 140
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Building and Plumbing Materials - Requirements Contract - ADSPO14-074943
(Ordinance S-48138)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
extend the term and to allow additional expenditures under Contract 147240 Browns
Partsmaster, Inc; 147235 Ferguson Enterprises, LLC; 147239 Six Points Hardware,
Inc; 147256 Paul's Ace Lumber & Hardware, and 147344 Border Construction
Specialties, LLC for the purchase of Building and Plumbing Parts and Supplies for
Citywide use. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $3,000,000.
Summary
These contracts provide a broad range of building supplies, such as concrete,
composites, cement, masonry, carpentry, lumber, drywall, fasteners, hardware,
plumbing supplies, metals, tools, electrical, and other facility operation products and
equipment. The contracts are available for Citywide use and primary users are the
Aviation, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Street Transportation, Housing and
Water Services departments. Locations are throughout the City and the requested
products are critical to Citywide facility operations. The extension of these contracts
will ensure continued supply of necessary products.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Dec. 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $3,000,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $13,500,000. Funds are available in the various departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contracts were originally approved by City Council on Apr. 4, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 141
Report
(Ordinance S-48138)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
extend the term and to allow additional expenditures under Contract 147240 Browns
Partsmaster, Inc; 147235 Ferguson Enterprises, LLC; 147239 Six Points Hardware,
Inc; 147256 Paul's Ace Lumber & Hardware, and 147344 Border Construction
Specialties, LLC for the purchase of Building and Plumbing Parts and Supplies for
Citywide use. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $3,000,000.
Summary
These contracts provide a broad range of building supplies, such as concrete,
composites, cement, masonry, carpentry, lumber, drywall, fasteners, hardware,
plumbing supplies, metals, tools, electrical, and other facility operation products and
equipment. The contracts are available for Citywide use and primary users are the
Aviation, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Street Transportation, Housing and
Water Services departments. Locations are throughout the City and the requested
products are critical to Citywide facility operations. The extension of these contracts
will ensure continued supply of necessary products.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Dec. 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $3,000,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $13,500,000. Funds are available in the various departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contracts were originally approved by City Council on Apr. 4, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 141
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Polymer-Modified MasterSeal and Tire Rubber Modified Surface Sealer -
Requirements Contract - RFA 18-133 - Amendment 2 (Ordinance S-48139)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 146879 with Sealmaster Arizona to provide additional funding for the
purchase of PMMS & TRMS for the Street Transportation Department. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $4 million.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional funds needed to continue with
currently planned street maintenance paving projects. Additional funding is required
due to the increase in use due to the program's effectiveness and popularity with
Council and residents.
The Street Transportation Department regularly uses emulsified asphalt surface
sealers for the maintenance of City streets. The implementation of a robust pavement
preservation program, the Accelerated Pavement Maintenance Program, along with
the acquisition of new equipment, has increased the requirements for this contract.
Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending on Jan. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the contract was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $1.5
million. An amendment increased the authorization for the contract by $3 million. This
amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an additional $4 million,
for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $8.5 million.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Polymer-Modified MasterSeal and Tire Rubber Modified Surface Sealer Contract
146879 (Ordinance S-44230) on Jan. 24, 2018; and
Page 142
· Polymer-Modified MasterSeal and Tire Rubber Modified Surface Sealer Contract
146879 - Amendment (Ordinance S-46838) on July 1, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 143
Report
Requirements Contract - RFA 18-133 - Amendment 2 (Ordinance S-48139)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 146879 with Sealmaster Arizona to provide additional funding for the
purchase of PMMS & TRMS for the Street Transportation Department. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $4 million.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional funds needed to continue with
currently planned street maintenance paving projects. Additional funding is required
due to the increase in use due to the program's effectiveness and popularity with
Council and residents.
The Street Transportation Department regularly uses emulsified asphalt surface
sealers for the maintenance of City streets. The implementation of a robust pavement
preservation program, the Accelerated Pavement Maintenance Program, along with
the acquisition of new equipment, has increased the requirements for this contract.
Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending on Jan. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the contract was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $1.5
million. An amendment increased the authorization for the contract by $3 million. This
amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an additional $4 million,
for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $8.5 million.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Polymer-Modified MasterSeal and Tire Rubber Modified Surface Sealer Contract
146879 (Ordinance S-44230) on Jan. 24, 2018; and
Page 142
· Polymer-Modified MasterSeal and Tire Rubber Modified Surface Sealer Contract
146879 - Amendment (Ordinance S-46838) on July 1, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 143
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request Authorization to Enter into Intergovernmental Agreement with Flood
Control District of Maricopa County for Tree Salvage and Relocation (Ordinance
S-48136)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County
(FCDMC) for Tree Salvage and Relocation from Central Station to FCDMC property
near 19th Avenue in Sunnyslope.
Summary
The project consists of relocating approximately ten trees from the Central Station
redevelopment site located at Central Avenue and Van Buren Street, to an area along
the FCDMC flood control structure near 19th Avenue in Sunnyslope. The Street
Transportation Department will cover all upfront costs associated with salvaging,
transporting and planting the trees, and the FCDMC will cover the costs of providing
irrigation and long-term maintenance of the trees.
Financial Impact
Funds are available in the Community and Economic Development Department
(CEDD) budget to cover City costs related to this project.
Location
Trees will be relocated from Central Avenue and Van Buren Street to the Sunnyslope
area along the Arizona Central Diversion Channel near 19th Avenue.
Council Districts: 3 and 7.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Ginger Spencer
and the Street Transportation and the Community and Economic Development
departments.
Page 144
Report
Control District of Maricopa County for Tree Salvage and Relocation (Ordinance
S-48136)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County
(FCDMC) for Tree Salvage and Relocation from Central Station to FCDMC property
near 19th Avenue in Sunnyslope.
Summary
The project consists of relocating approximately ten trees from the Central Station
redevelopment site located at Central Avenue and Van Buren Street, to an area along
the FCDMC flood control structure near 19th Avenue in Sunnyslope. The Street
Transportation Department will cover all upfront costs associated with salvaging,
transporting and planting the trees, and the FCDMC will cover the costs of providing
irrigation and long-term maintenance of the trees.
Financial Impact
Funds are available in the Community and Economic Development Department
(CEDD) budget to cover City costs related to this project.
Location
Trees will be relocated from Central Avenue and Van Buren Street to the Sunnyslope
area along the Arizona Central Diversion Channel near 19th Avenue.
Council Districts: 3 and 7.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Ginger Spencer
and the Street Transportation and the Community and Economic Development
departments.
Page 144
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Materials Testing and Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call
Services for Light Rail Extensions - Amendment (Ordinance S-48151)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
agreements with the 15 consultants listed in Attachment A to provide continued
Materials Testing and Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services for
Light Rail Extension projects. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to
the agreements as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
There are no additional fees for services.
Summary
The purpose of these amendments is to provide continued Materials Testing and
Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services for the following Light
Rail Extension projects: South Central Extension/Downtown Hub, Northwest Extension
Phase II, and the Capitol/I-10 Extension. The amendments are necessary because of
the unforeseen and unprecedented impacts to the construction industry due to COVID-
19. The amendments are needed to avoid potential delays due to factors outside of the
contractors'/City's control, consulting firms' impact on staffing requirements, and
increased workloads. Flexible contract spending capacity is needed to maintain testing
and inspection levels consistent with the amount of work resulting from the active
progression of ongoing Light Rail Extension projects. These amendments will provide
flexible spending capacity and add time to the agreements. There is no financial
impact to the budget as the aggregate spending authorities for these agreements will
not exceed the Council-approved total aggregate amounts set for these two areas of
on-call services.
Contract Term
These amendments will extend the term of each agreement by one year for a total
agreement term of five years. Work scopes identified and incorporated into the
agreements prior to the end of their terms may be agreed to by the parties and work
may extend past agreement termination. No additional changes may be executed after
the end of the term.
Page 145
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for each of the Materials Testing On-Call Services was
executed for a fee not-to-exceed $5 million, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.
· The initial agreement for each of the Construction Administration and Inspection On
-Call Services was executed for a fee not-to-exceed $5,625,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· These amendments will establish an overall aggregate capacity of the Materials
Testing On-Call Services agreements for a total aggregate not-to-exceed amount of
$35 million. The original budget remains the same.
· These amendments will establish an overall aggregate capacity of the Construction
Administration and Inspection On-Call Services agreements for a total aggregate
not-to-exceed amount $45 million. The original budget remains the same.
Funding for these amendments is available in the Public Transit Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any assignments of
$100,000 or more. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered
agreement services, which may extend past agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Materials Testing On-Call Services Agreements 150937
through 150943 and Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services
Agreements 150944 through 150951 (Ordinance S-46008) on Sept. 18, 2019.
Location
Council Districts: 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Public Transit
Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 146
ATTACHMENT A
Materials Testing On-Call Services
1. Wright Geotechnical of Arizona, LLC dba ALTA Arizona – 150937
2. Quality Testing, LLC – 150938
3. ATL, Inc. dba CMT Engineering Laboratories – 150939
4. Speedie & Associates, Inc. – 150940
5. Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. – 150941
6. Ninyo & Moore, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. – 150942
7. Smith & Annala Engineering, Co. (SAECO) – 150943
Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services
1. Consultant Engineering, Inc. (CEI) – 150944
2. Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc. – 150945
3. Infenix, LLC – 150946
4. WSP USA, Inc. – 150947
5. Structural Grace, Inc. – 150948
6. Ritoch-Powell & Associates Consulting Engineers – 150949
7. Wood, Patel & Associates, Inc. – 150950
8. ATL, Inc. dba CMT Engineering Laboratories - 150951
Page 147
Report
Services for Light Rail Extensions - Amendment (Ordinance S-48151)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
agreements with the 15 consultants listed in Attachment A to provide continued
Materials Testing and Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services for
Light Rail Extension projects. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to
the agreements as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
There are no additional fees for services.
Summary
The purpose of these amendments is to provide continued Materials Testing and
Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services for the following Light
Rail Extension projects: South Central Extension/Downtown Hub, Northwest Extension
Phase II, and the Capitol/I-10 Extension. The amendments are necessary because of
the unforeseen and unprecedented impacts to the construction industry due to COVID-
19. The amendments are needed to avoid potential delays due to factors outside of the
contractors'/City's control, consulting firms' impact on staffing requirements, and
increased workloads. Flexible contract spending capacity is needed to maintain testing
and inspection levels consistent with the amount of work resulting from the active
progression of ongoing Light Rail Extension projects. These amendments will provide
flexible spending capacity and add time to the agreements. There is no financial
impact to the budget as the aggregate spending authorities for these agreements will
not exceed the Council-approved total aggregate amounts set for these two areas of
on-call services.
Contract Term
These amendments will extend the term of each agreement by one year for a total
agreement term of five years. Work scopes identified and incorporated into the
agreements prior to the end of their terms may be agreed to by the parties and work
may extend past agreement termination. No additional changes may be executed after
the end of the term.
Page 145
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for each of the Materials Testing On-Call Services was
executed for a fee not-to-exceed $5 million, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.
· The initial agreement for each of the Construction Administration and Inspection On
-Call Services was executed for a fee not-to-exceed $5,625,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· These amendments will establish an overall aggregate capacity of the Materials
Testing On-Call Services agreements for a total aggregate not-to-exceed amount of
$35 million. The original budget remains the same.
· These amendments will establish an overall aggregate capacity of the Construction
Administration and Inspection On-Call Services agreements for a total aggregate
not-to-exceed amount $45 million. The original budget remains the same.
Funding for these amendments is available in the Public Transit Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any assignments of
$100,000 or more. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered
agreement services, which may extend past agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Materials Testing On-Call Services Agreements 150937
through 150943 and Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services
Agreements 150944 through 150951 (Ordinance S-46008) on Sept. 18, 2019.
Location
Council Districts: 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Public Transit
Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 146
ATTACHMENT A
Materials Testing On-Call Services
1. Wright Geotechnical of Arizona, LLC dba ALTA Arizona – 150937
2. Quality Testing, LLC – 150938
3. ATL, Inc. dba CMT Engineering Laboratories – 150939
4. Speedie & Associates, Inc. – 150940
5. Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. – 150941
6. Ninyo & Moore, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. – 150942
7. Smith & Annala Engineering, Co. (SAECO) – 150943
Construction Administration and Inspection On-Call Services
1. Consultant Engineering, Inc. (CEI) – 150944
2. Tristar Engineering and Management, Inc. – 150945
3. Infenix, LLC – 150946
4. WSP USA, Inc. – 150947
5. Structural Grace, Inc. – 150948
6. Ritoch-Powell & Associates Consulting Engineers – 150949
7. Wood, Patel & Associates, Inc. – 150950
8. ATL, Inc. dba CMT Engineering Laboratories - 150951
Page 147
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Palintest Chlordiox Equipment, Reagents and Consumables Agreement -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-48142)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Aqua Service Distributors to provide Palintest Chlordiox Plus and Palintest Kemio
water quality testing kits for the purpose of conducting water testing in the field to meet
the requirements of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Disinfection Byproducts
Rules. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The agreement will not exceed $20,000.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to purchase Palintest Chlordiox and Palintest Kemio
test kits for performing Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite compliance testing. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) require Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite samples to be analyzed within
15 minutes of sample collection. Due to this time constraint, testing in the laboratory is
not an option, therefore in-field testing is required.
This direct selection is necessary because Palintest products are the only testing
products approved by the EPA and ADEQ for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite testing.
Aqua Service Distributor’s services include but are not limited to: Authorized distributor
of Palintest Chlordiox and Palintest Kemio testing equipment.
Procurement Information
An exception to the procurement process was determined to select the Contractor set
forth in City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made
because there exists lack of qualified/available contractors/consultants which makes a
competitive selection process impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2022 for a five-year aggregate term with
no options to extend.
Page 148
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Aqua Service Distributors will not exceed $20,000 for the five-
year aggregate term.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 149
Report
Request for Award (Ordinance S-48142)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Aqua Service Distributors to provide Palintest Chlordiox Plus and Palintest Kemio
water quality testing kits for the purpose of conducting water testing in the field to meet
the requirements of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Disinfection Byproducts
Rules. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The agreement will not exceed $20,000.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to purchase Palintest Chlordiox and Palintest Kemio
test kits for performing Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite compliance testing. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) require Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite samples to be analyzed within
15 minutes of sample collection. Due to this time constraint, testing in the laboratory is
not an option, therefore in-field testing is required.
This direct selection is necessary because Palintest products are the only testing
products approved by the EPA and ADEQ for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite testing.
Aqua Service Distributor’s services include but are not limited to: Authorized distributor
of Palintest Chlordiox and Palintest Kemio testing equipment.
Procurement Information
An exception to the procurement process was determined to select the Contractor set
forth in City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made
because there exists lack of qualified/available contractors/consultants which makes a
competitive selection process impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2022 for a five-year aggregate term with
no options to extend.
Page 148
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Aqua Service Distributors will not exceed $20,000 for the five-
year aggregate term.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 149
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Bypass Spools and Tailpieces - Request for Award (Ordinance S-48145)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Ferguson Enterprises, LLC., to provide bypass spools and tailpieces on an as-
needed basis. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This agreement will not exceed $1,115,993.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to procure bypass spools and tailpieces, which are
plumbing parts used in the construction, installation, repair and replacement of large
water meters and bypasses within the Water Meter Division of the Water Services
Department. The bypass spools and tailpieces are necessary infrastructure parts and
the water meters and bypasses would not function properly without them.
Ferguson Enterprises, LLC's services include but are not limited to the supply of
various sizes of bypass spools and tailpieces.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted bids and are listed below. One bid was found to be non-
responsive.
Selected Bidder
Ferguson Enterprises, LLC: $719,524.33
Non-Responsive Bidder
Kelly Pipe: No-Bid/Non-Responsive
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021, for a five-year aggregate term with
no options to extend.
Page 150
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Ferguson Enterprises, LLC will not exceed $1,115,993.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 151
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Ferguson Enterprises, LLC., to provide bypass spools and tailpieces on an as-
needed basis. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This agreement will not exceed $1,115,993.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to procure bypass spools and tailpieces, which are
plumbing parts used in the construction, installation, repair and replacement of large
water meters and bypasses within the Water Meter Division of the Water Services
Department. The bypass spools and tailpieces are necessary infrastructure parts and
the water meters and bypasses would not function properly without them.
Ferguson Enterprises, LLC's services include but are not limited to the supply of
various sizes of bypass spools and tailpieces.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted bids and are listed below. One bid was found to be non-
responsive.
Selected Bidder
Ferguson Enterprises, LLC: $719,524.33
Non-Responsive Bidder
Kelly Pipe: No-Bid/Non-Responsive
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Dec. 1, 2021, for a five-year aggregate term with
no options to extend.
Page 150
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Ferguson Enterprises, LLC will not exceed $1,115,993.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 151
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Peoria Butler Drive Water
Reclamation Facility Wastewater Bypass to the 99th Avenue Interceptor and City
of Phoenix 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (Ordinance S-48147)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) by and between the City of Peoria, the City of
Phoenix and the City of Glendale to provide the City of Peoria the ability to use the
Bypass Structure to divert wastewater flows to the 99th Avenue Interceptor that
normally go to its Butler Facility as may be necessary during an Emergency Bypass
Event or a Planned Bypass Event. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City of Peoria has ownership capacity in the 99th Avenue Interceptor from 99th
and Olive avenues to the diversion structure located near 99th Avenue and Van Buren
Street. At the diversion structure, Peoria’s wastewater flows were diverted to the
Tolleson Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. Peoria constructed the Butler
Drive Reclamation Facility to take its wastewater flows out of the 99th Avenue
Interceptor. During construction of the Butler Facility, a Bypass Structure was
purposely installed at 99th and Olive avenues to bypass the Butler Facility for
Emergency and Planned Bypass Events.
Peoria retained its ownership capacity in the 99th Avenue Interceptor after the Butler
Facility was constructed. However, Peoria does not have ownership capacity
downstream of the diversion structure to transport wastewater flows to the 91st
Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Glendale agrees to allow Peoria to use
Glendale’s capacity in the 99th Avenue Interceptor from the diversion structure to the
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant during Emergency and Planned Bypass
Events.
The City of Phoenix (Phoenix) also agrees to receive and treat the Peoria wastewater
flows at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant during these Emergency and
Planned Bypass Events. Phoenix has available excess treatment capacity at the 91st
Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant and is willing to provide temporary treatment
services to Peoria during Emergency and Planned Bypass Events.
Page 152
Contract Term
The term of the Intergovernmental Agreement shall be for 20 years from the Effective
Date. Upon mutual agreement and formal written amendment, the parties may extend
this Agreement for one additional 20-year term provided the initial term has not yet
expired, which may be exercised by the City Manager or designee.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget using Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) funds. The Budget and
Research Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to
execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.
SROG will be reimbursed by the City of Peoria for all costs associated with bypass
events.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG Advisors recommended acceptance of this IGA to the SROG Committee
on Sept. 16, 2021, by a vote of 5-0.
The City of Peoria City Council approved this IGA on Nov. 9, 2021, by a vote of 7-0.
The SROG Committee accepted this IGA on Nov. 10, 2021, by a vote of 5-0.
The City of Glendale City Council is scheduled to vote on this IGA on Dec. 14, 2021.
Location
The Bypass Structures is located at 99th Avenue and Olive Avenue. The 99th Avenue
Interceptor alignment extends from 99th and Olive avenues to 87th Avenue and
Broadway Road.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 153
Report
Reclamation Facility Wastewater Bypass to the 99th Avenue Interceptor and City
of Phoenix 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (Ordinance S-48147)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) by and between the City of Peoria, the City of
Phoenix and the City of Glendale to provide the City of Peoria the ability to use the
Bypass Structure to divert wastewater flows to the 99th Avenue Interceptor that
normally go to its Butler Facility as may be necessary during an Emergency Bypass
Event or a Planned Bypass Event. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City of Peoria has ownership capacity in the 99th Avenue Interceptor from 99th
and Olive avenues to the diversion structure located near 99th Avenue and Van Buren
Street. At the diversion structure, Peoria’s wastewater flows were diverted to the
Tolleson Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. Peoria constructed the Butler
Drive Reclamation Facility to take its wastewater flows out of the 99th Avenue
Interceptor. During construction of the Butler Facility, a Bypass Structure was
purposely installed at 99th and Olive avenues to bypass the Butler Facility for
Emergency and Planned Bypass Events.
Peoria retained its ownership capacity in the 99th Avenue Interceptor after the Butler
Facility was constructed. However, Peoria does not have ownership capacity
downstream of the diversion structure to transport wastewater flows to the 91st
Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Glendale agrees to allow Peoria to use
Glendale’s capacity in the 99th Avenue Interceptor from the diversion structure to the
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant during Emergency and Planned Bypass
Events.
The City of Phoenix (Phoenix) also agrees to receive and treat the Peoria wastewater
flows at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant during these Emergency and
Planned Bypass Events. Phoenix has available excess treatment capacity at the 91st
Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant and is willing to provide temporary treatment
services to Peoria during Emergency and Planned Bypass Events.
Page 152
Contract Term
The term of the Intergovernmental Agreement shall be for 20 years from the Effective
Date. Upon mutual agreement and formal written amendment, the parties may extend
this Agreement for one additional 20-year term provided the initial term has not yet
expired, which may be exercised by the City Manager or designee.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget using Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) funds. The Budget and
Research Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to
execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.
SROG will be reimbursed by the City of Peoria for all costs associated with bypass
events.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG Advisors recommended acceptance of this IGA to the SROG Committee
on Sept. 16, 2021, by a vote of 5-0.
The City of Peoria City Council approved this IGA on Nov. 9, 2021, by a vote of 7-0.
The SROG Committee accepted this IGA on Nov. 10, 2021, by a vote of 5-0.
The City of Glendale City Council is scheduled to vote on this IGA on Dec. 14, 2021.
Location
The Bypass Structures is located at 99th Avenue and Olive Avenue. The 99th Avenue
Interceptor alignment extends from 99th and Olive avenues to 87th Avenue and
Broadway Road.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 153
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Hoists and Cranes Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-48148)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance to provide hoist and crane maintenance
and repair services for the purpose of avoiding equipment failures that could cause
interruptions in daily operations that require lifting of large objects. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement
will not exceed $933,710.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide hoist and crane maintenance and repair
services. There are approximately 100 heavy-duty hoists and cranes located at
multiple Water Services facilities, including: water and wastewater treatment plants;
key lift stations, remote facilities, maintenance buildings and stockrooms. They have a
lifting capacity from one to 15 tons and are used to: move chlorine cylinders; lift and
remove pumps and motors for maintenance; and to move other heavy pieces of
equipment and infrastructure that cannot otherwise be moved by a forklift or staff.
Hoists and cranes require specialized maintenance and repair by certified contractors
for the safety of City staff and to prolong the life of equipment.
Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance services include, but are not limited to: lifting
and lowering large and heavy objects from one location to another with the assistance
of cables and pulleys, and performing annual preventative maintenance, repairs and
replacement of parts as needed, for various manufacturers' hoists and cranes.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using a Request for Proposal procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted proposals and are listed below, and all proposals were found
to be responsive and responsible.
The evaluation panel recommendation was reached by consensus in consideration of
published selection criteria with total points ranging from 0 to 1,000. The categories
Page 154
were as follows:
Company History, Experience and Qualifications: 0 to 400 points
Method of Approach: 0 to 350 points
Cost of Services: 0 to 250 points
The following Offeror is selected for award:
Selected Vendor:
Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance: 700 points
Other Offeror:
Arlington Sales and Rental: 310 points
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2022, for a seven-year aggregate term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance will not exceed
$933,710.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 155
Report
Award (Ordinance S-48148)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance to provide hoist and crane maintenance
and repair services for the purpose of avoiding equipment failures that could cause
interruptions in daily operations that require lifting of large objects. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement
will not exceed $933,710.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide hoist and crane maintenance and repair
services. There are approximately 100 heavy-duty hoists and cranes located at
multiple Water Services facilities, including: water and wastewater treatment plants;
key lift stations, remote facilities, maintenance buildings and stockrooms. They have a
lifting capacity from one to 15 tons and are used to: move chlorine cylinders; lift and
remove pumps and motors for maintenance; and to move other heavy pieces of
equipment and infrastructure that cannot otherwise be moved by a forklift or staff.
Hoists and cranes require specialized maintenance and repair by certified contractors
for the safety of City staff and to prolong the life of equipment.
Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance services include, but are not limited to: lifting
and lowering large and heavy objects from one location to another with the assistance
of cables and pulleys, and performing annual preventative maintenance, repairs and
replacement of parts as needed, for various manufacturers' hoists and cranes.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using a Request for Proposal procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted proposals and are listed below, and all proposals were found
to be responsive and responsible.
The evaluation panel recommendation was reached by consensus in consideration of
published selection criteria with total points ranging from 0 to 1,000. The categories
Page 154
were as follows:
Company History, Experience and Qualifications: 0 to 400 points
Method of Approach: 0 to 350 points
Cost of Services: 0 to 250 points
The following Offeror is selected for award:
Selected Vendor:
Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance: 700 points
Other Offeror:
Arlington Sales and Rental: 310 points
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2022, for a seven-year aggregate term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Orbit Industrial Services & Maintenance will not exceed
$933,710.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 155
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Parts and Equipment for Chlorine Analyzers - Amendment (Ordinance S-48149)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Agreements 150344 and 150345 with Precision Integrated Systems, LLC and PC
Links, LLC, to provide additional funding to the agreements. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures for services and goods included in these amendments will not exceed
$875,600.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the continued monitoring of chlorine
and pH levels when treating water and wastewater to ensure chlorine levels stay within
the required parameters specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Wastewater Treatment has approximately 30 chlorine analyzers and related equipment
that require replacement due to the manufacturer of the current analyzers and parts
becoming obsolete.
Contract Term
The agreements' terms will remain unchanged, ending on June 30, 2024.
Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Parts and Equipment for Chemical Analyzers Agreements
150344 and 150345 (Ordinance S-45792) on June 19, 2019.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the agreements were for an expenditure not to exceed
$638,308. This amendments will increase the authorization for the agreements by an
additional $875,600, for a new total not to exceed $1,513,908.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Page 156
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 157
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Agreements 150344 and 150345 with Precision Integrated Systems, LLC and PC
Links, LLC, to provide additional funding to the agreements. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures for services and goods included in these amendments will not exceed
$875,600.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the continued monitoring of chlorine
and pH levels when treating water and wastewater to ensure chlorine levels stay within
the required parameters specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Wastewater Treatment has approximately 30 chlorine analyzers and related equipment
that require replacement due to the manufacturer of the current analyzers and parts
becoming obsolete.
Contract Term
The agreements' terms will remain unchanged, ending on June 30, 2024.
Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Parts and Equipment for Chemical Analyzers Agreements
150344 and 150345 (Ordinance S-45792) on June 19, 2019.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the agreements were for an expenditure not to exceed
$638,308. This amendments will increase the authorization for the agreements by an
additional $875,600, for a new total not to exceed $1,513,908.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Page 156
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 157
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Agreement to Share Costs for the Feasibility Study of Bartlett Dam Modification
Alternatives Among Cost-Share Partners and Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District (SRP) (Ordinance S-48158)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) and
others (Parties) to share the costs of a feasibility study to construct a new Bartlett
Dam. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The cost of the feasibility study will not exceed $600,000.
Summary
Sedimentation in Horseshoe Reservoir on the Verde River is adversely impacting the
storage capacity in the reservoir, reducing the amount of water available to SRP
customers. The City is particularly impacted because it has additional separate water
storage rights in the reservoir based on a 1950 Phoenix investment in gates installed
on Horseshoe Dam (Gatewater supplies). The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is about
to begin a feasibility study to consider a modification of the existing Bartlett Dam
downstream of Horseshoe Dam and Reservoir to create a single larger reservoir in
Bartlett Lake. The larger reservoir would restore the lost storage capacity of
Horseshoe Reservoir for SRP customers and the City, in addition to adding storage
capacity which would make additional water resources available for interested parties.
SRP estimates the non-federal portion of the feasibility study will cost $5 million to
evaluate the size of a modified Bartlett Dam, the cost, the need for additional water
resources in the area, local interest in a modified dam and investigate the
environmental impact. SRP has asked the City and other interested parties to share
the non-federal costs of the feasibility study. Due to the City's existing rights in
Horseshoe Reservoir, the City would contribute funding and participate in the study as
a member of the Steering Committee. There are approximately 20 other entities
participating in the cost share agreement, including, but not limited to the cities of
Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale,
Surprise and Tempe, as well as private water companies, such as EPCOR USA and
Arizona Water Company.
Page 158
Contract Term
This Agreement terminates when the feasibility study is completed or when the Bureau
of Reclamation otherwise terminates the study. It is expected that the feasibility study
will be completed in approximately four years.
Financial Impact
Due to the City's existing rights in Horseshoe Reservoir, the City will contribute funding
$150,000 each year for an anticipated four years. The total value of this Agreement will
not exceed $600,000.
Funding for this agreement is available from the Colorado River Resiliency Fund, a
part of the Water Services Department’s Capital Improvement budget.
Location
Bartlett Lake, Arizona
District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 159
Report
Alternatives Among Cost-Share Partners and Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District (SRP) (Ordinance S-48158)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) and
others (Parties) to share the costs of a feasibility study to construct a new Bartlett
Dam. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The cost of the feasibility study will not exceed $600,000.
Summary
Sedimentation in Horseshoe Reservoir on the Verde River is adversely impacting the
storage capacity in the reservoir, reducing the amount of water available to SRP
customers. The City is particularly impacted because it has additional separate water
storage rights in the reservoir based on a 1950 Phoenix investment in gates installed
on Horseshoe Dam (Gatewater supplies). The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is about
to begin a feasibility study to consider a modification of the existing Bartlett Dam
downstream of Horseshoe Dam and Reservoir to create a single larger reservoir in
Bartlett Lake. The larger reservoir would restore the lost storage capacity of
Horseshoe Reservoir for SRP customers and the City, in addition to adding storage
capacity which would make additional water resources available for interested parties.
SRP estimates the non-federal portion of the feasibility study will cost $5 million to
evaluate the size of a modified Bartlett Dam, the cost, the need for additional water
resources in the area, local interest in a modified dam and investigate the
environmental impact. SRP has asked the City and other interested parties to share
the non-federal costs of the feasibility study. Due to the City's existing rights in
Horseshoe Reservoir, the City would contribute funding and participate in the study as
a member of the Steering Committee. There are approximately 20 other entities
participating in the cost share agreement, including, but not limited to the cities of
Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale,
Surprise and Tempe, as well as private water companies, such as EPCOR USA and
Arizona Water Company.
Page 158
Contract Term
This Agreement terminates when the feasibility study is completed or when the Bureau
of Reclamation otherwise terminates the study. It is expected that the feasibility study
will be completed in approximately four years.
Financial Impact
Due to the City's existing rights in Horseshoe Reservoir, the City will contribute funding
$150,000 each year for an anticipated four years. The total value of this Agreement will
not exceed $600,000.
Funding for this agreement is available from the Colorado River Resiliency Fund, a
part of the Water Services Department’s Capital Improvement budget.
Location
Bartlett Lake, Arizona
District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 159
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - 1003 East Indian School - PLAT 200591 - 10th Street and Indian
School Road
Plat: 200591
Project: 06-1340
Name of Plat: 1003 East Indian School
Owner: Fairway Colima AZ Four, LLC
Engineer: John Hook, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 22, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at 10th Street and Indian School Road.
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 160
Report
School Road
Plat: 200591
Project: 06-1340
Name of Plat: 1003 East Indian School
Owner: Fairway Colima AZ Four, LLC
Engineer: John Hook, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 22, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at 10th Street and Indian School Road.
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 160
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Embrey - 7th & Oak - PLAT 210050 - Northwest Corner of 7th Street
and Oak Street
Plat: 210050
Project: 20-2296
Name of Plat: Embrey - 7th & Oak
Owner: Seven Oaks PHX, LLC
Engineer: Kirk J. Pangus, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 27, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at northwest corner of 7th Street and Oak Street.
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 161
Report
and Oak Street
Plat: 210050
Project: 20-2296
Name of Plat: Embrey - 7th & Oak
Owner: Seven Oaks PHX, LLC
Engineer: Kirk J. Pangus, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 27, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at northwest corner of 7th Street and Oak Street.
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 161
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Bibars Properties 1 Industrial Office Building - PLAT 210059 - 3641
East Van Buren Street
Plat: 210059
Project: 20-3566
Name of Plat: Bibars Properties 1 Industrial Office Building
Owner: Masyno Magic Shave Building, LLC
Engineer: Anthony Zaugg, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 28, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at 3641 East Van Buren Street.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 162
Report
East Van Buren Street
Plat: 210059
Project: 20-3566
Name of Plat: Bibars Properties 1 Industrial Office Building
Owner: Masyno Magic Shave Building, LLC
Engineer: Anthony Zaugg, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 28, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at 3641 East Van Buren Street.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 162
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - LIV Laveen - PLAT 210025 - Southeast Corner of 39th Avenue and
Dobbins Road
Plat: 210025
Project: 20-342
Name of Plat: LIV LAVEEN
Owner: RG LIV LAVEEN, LLC
Engineer: Terrascape Consulting, LLC
Request: A 3 Lot Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 19, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at southeast corner of 39th Avenue and Dobbins Road.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 163
Report
Dobbins Road
Plat: 210025
Project: 20-342
Name of Plat: LIV LAVEEN
Owner: RG LIV LAVEEN, LLC
Engineer: Terrascape Consulting, LLC
Request: A 3 Lot Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 19, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at southeast corner of 39th Avenue and Dobbins Road.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 163
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - 32nd Place and Washington St - PLAT 210019 - Northwest Corner of
32nd Place and Washington Street
Plat: 210019
Project: 21-1244
Name of Plat: 32nd Place and Washington St
Owner: Eagle Properties, LLC
Engineer: Bruce R. Heyse, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Nov. 1, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at northwest corner of 32nd Place and Washington Street.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 164
Report
32nd Place and Washington Street
Plat: 210019
Project: 21-1244
Name of Plat: 32nd Place and Washington St
Owner: Eagle Properties, LLC
Engineer: Bruce R. Heyse, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Nov. 1, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at northwest corner of 32nd Place and Washington Street.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 164
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Estrella Crossing - Phase 3 - PLAT 200611 - Southwest Corner of
Dobbins Road and 55th Avenue
Plat: 200611
Project: 19-722
Name of Plat: Estrella Crossing - Phase 3
Owner: Brookfield Holdings (Estrella 2), LLC and City of Phoenix, a Municipal
Corporation
Engineer: Robert Johnston, RLS
Request: A 177 Lot Detached Single Family Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 26, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of Dobbins Road and 55th Avenue.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 165
Report
Dobbins Road and 55th Avenue
Plat: 200611
Project: 19-722
Name of Plat: Estrella Crossing - Phase 3
Owner: Brookfield Holdings (Estrella 2), LLC and City of Phoenix, a Municipal
Corporation
Engineer: Robert Johnston, RLS
Request: A 177 Lot Detached Single Family Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 26, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of Dobbins Road and 55th Avenue.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 165
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Circle K Store NWC 19th Avenue & Southern Avenue - PLAT 210033 -
Northwest Corner of 19th Avenue and Southern Avenue
Plat: 210033
Project: 99-4729
Name of Plat: Circle K Store NWC 19th Avenue & Southern Avenue
Owner: Circle K Stores, Inc.
Engineer: Anthony Slater, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 10, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Southern Avenue.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 166
Report
Northwest Corner of 19th Avenue and Southern Avenue
Plat: 210033
Project: 99-4729
Name of Plat: Circle K Store NWC 19th Avenue & Southern Avenue
Owner: Circle K Stores, Inc.
Engineer: Anthony Slater, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 10, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Southern Avenue.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 166
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Historic Preservation Exterior Rehabilitation Grants (Ordinance S-48165)
Request for approval of 12 Historic Preservation Exterior Rehabilitation Grants for the
2021-22 Fiscal Year totaling $186,997.45. In exchange for receiving grant funds, the
property owner agrees to sell the city a 15-20 year conservation easement to protect
the historic character of the property's exterior. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City Council approved $200,000 in the General Fund for the 2021-22 Fiscal Year
budget for exterior rehabilitation grants for residential properties listed on the Phoenix
Historic Property Register. On Nov. 1, a panel consisting of staff, a member of the
Historic Preservation Commission and a past grant recipient evaluated 62 applications
for rehabilitation grants. The panel evaluated the requests with scoring criteria based
on the following historic preservation standards: addressing critical needs, visual
impacts, revitalization impacts and effort.
The panel recommended the following 12 grant applications for the work and grant
amounts listed below:
· John A. Martin; 310 W. Monte Vista Rd.; Willo; Reroof - wood shingle; Score: 55.5;
Amount: $20,000.
· Jason and Alissa Mazanek; 40 E. Hoover Ave.; Ashland Place; Foundation repair,
brick repoint; Score: 48.0; Amount: $6,372.50.
· Andrew Algo and James Wosachio; 136 W. Almeria Rd.; Willo; Stucco repair,
painting, window repair, reroof; Score: 47.5; Amount: $9,800.50.
· Jonathan Kuipers; 1322 W. Portland St.; F.Q. Story; Foundation repair; Score: 46.3;
Amount: $20,000.
· Stephen G. and Antoinette M. Dreiseszun; 1125 W. Culver St.; F.Q. Story; Roof
replacement with diamond-shaped metal to match asbestos shingles; Score: 46.0;
Amount: $20,000.
· Denise and Michael March; 1133 W. Holly St.; Encanto-Palmcroft; Reroof - asphalt
to replicate shake; Score: 44.8; Amount: $10,875.
· Charles Fertal and MaKayla Fertal; 525 W. Portland St.; Roosevelt; Roof repair,
Page 167
wood window restoration; Score: 44.3; Amount: $20,000.
· Jason Cotter; 1912 W. Holly St.; Villa Verde; Foundation repair, window
reproduction; Score: 44.0; Amount: $20,000.
· Eileen Imbus; 1348 W. Portland St.; F.Q. Story; Wood window repair; Score: 43.8;
Amount: $20,000.
· Jeff Scott Densic; 1644 Palmcroft Way SW; Encanto-Palmcroft; Stucco removal,
window replacement with vintage steel casement; Score: 43.5; Amount: $9,820.
· Jaime Ewald; 2217 N. Laurel Ave.; Fairview Place; Foundation repair; Score: 41.5;
Amount: $10,129.45.
· James Judge and Andrew Albrecht; 301 W. Almeria Rd.; Willo; Tile roof
repair/replacement, window restoration, stucco repair, paint; Score: 41.5; Amount:
$20,000.
In exchange for receiving the grant funds, the property owner agrees to sell the city a
conservation easement to protect the historic character of the property's exteriors.
Financial Impact
The twelve grant awards total $186,997.45. Funds are available in the General Fund
Historic Preservation operating budget. The grant funds will be disbursed to applicants
as reimbursement after the work is completed and inspected by staff.
Concurrence/Previous Action
· The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of this item on Nov.
15, 2021, by a vote of 9-0.
· The City Council Economic Development and Equity Subcommittee heard the item
on Nov. 16, 2021 and voted to approve the Historic Preservation Commission
recommendation and recommend City Council approval, by a vote of 4:0.
Location
Ten of the residential property addresses listed above are located in District 4, two are
located in District 7.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 168
Report
Request for approval of 12 Historic Preservation Exterior Rehabilitation Grants for the
2021-22 Fiscal Year totaling $186,997.45. In exchange for receiving grant funds, the
property owner agrees to sell the city a 15-20 year conservation easement to protect
the historic character of the property's exterior. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City Council approved $200,000 in the General Fund for the 2021-22 Fiscal Year
budget for exterior rehabilitation grants for residential properties listed on the Phoenix
Historic Property Register. On Nov. 1, a panel consisting of staff, a member of the
Historic Preservation Commission and a past grant recipient evaluated 62 applications
for rehabilitation grants. The panel evaluated the requests with scoring criteria based
on the following historic preservation standards: addressing critical needs, visual
impacts, revitalization impacts and effort.
The panel recommended the following 12 grant applications for the work and grant
amounts listed below:
· John A. Martin; 310 W. Monte Vista Rd.; Willo; Reroof - wood shingle; Score: 55.5;
Amount: $20,000.
· Jason and Alissa Mazanek; 40 E. Hoover Ave.; Ashland Place; Foundation repair,
brick repoint; Score: 48.0; Amount: $6,372.50.
· Andrew Algo and James Wosachio; 136 W. Almeria Rd.; Willo; Stucco repair,
painting, window repair, reroof; Score: 47.5; Amount: $9,800.50.
· Jonathan Kuipers; 1322 W. Portland St.; F.Q. Story; Foundation repair; Score: 46.3;
Amount: $20,000.
· Stephen G. and Antoinette M. Dreiseszun; 1125 W. Culver St.; F.Q. Story; Roof
replacement with diamond-shaped metal to match asbestos shingles; Score: 46.0;
Amount: $20,000.
· Denise and Michael March; 1133 W. Holly St.; Encanto-Palmcroft; Reroof - asphalt
to replicate shake; Score: 44.8; Amount: $10,875.
· Charles Fertal and MaKayla Fertal; 525 W. Portland St.; Roosevelt; Roof repair,
Page 167
wood window restoration; Score: 44.3; Amount: $20,000.
· Jason Cotter; 1912 W. Holly St.; Villa Verde; Foundation repair, window
reproduction; Score: 44.0; Amount: $20,000.
· Eileen Imbus; 1348 W. Portland St.; F.Q. Story; Wood window repair; Score: 43.8;
Amount: $20,000.
· Jeff Scott Densic; 1644 Palmcroft Way SW; Encanto-Palmcroft; Stucco removal,
window replacement with vintage steel casement; Score: 43.5; Amount: $9,820.
· Jaime Ewald; 2217 N. Laurel Ave.; Fairview Place; Foundation repair; Score: 41.5;
Amount: $10,129.45.
· James Judge and Andrew Albrecht; 301 W. Almeria Rd.; Willo; Tile roof
repair/replacement, window restoration, stucco repair, paint; Score: 41.5; Amount:
$20,000.
In exchange for receiving the grant funds, the property owner agrees to sell the city a
conservation easement to protect the historic character of the property's exteriors.
Financial Impact
The twelve grant awards total $186,997.45. Funds are available in the General Fund
Historic Preservation operating budget. The grant funds will be disbursed to applicants
as reimbursement after the work is completed and inspected by staff.
Concurrence/Previous Action
· The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of this item on Nov.
15, 2021, by a vote of 9-0.
· The City Council Economic Development and Equity Subcommittee heard the item
on Nov. 16, 2021 and voted to approve the Historic Preservation Commission
recommendation and recommend City Council approval, by a vote of 4:0.
Location
Ten of the residential property addresses listed above are located in District 4, two are
located in District 7.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 168
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1226 (Ordinance G-6920)
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1226. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-13-88-8 and the entitlements are fully vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located on the northeast corner of 16th and Portland streets
Application No.: Z-13-88-8
Zoning: C-2
Owner: 16th & East Papago Partnership/Will Saul
Acreage: 5.20
Location
Northeast corner of 16th and Portland streets
Address: n/a
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 169
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1226.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1226, which
accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 170
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:_____________________________
_____________________________
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
PL:tml:LF21-2734:12-1-2021
Page 171
Page 172
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1226. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-13-88-8 and the entitlements are fully vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located on the northeast corner of 16th and Portland streets
Application No.: Z-13-88-8
Zoning: C-2
Owner: 16th & East Papago Partnership/Will Saul
Acreage: 5.20
Location
Northeast corner of 16th and Portland streets
Address: n/a
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 169
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1226.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1226, which
accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 170
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:_____________________________
_____________________________
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
PL:tml:LF21-2734:12-1-2021
Page 171
Page 172
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-51-21-1 -
Southeast Corner of 33rd Avenue and Peoria Avenue (Ordinance G-6926)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-O (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District) to C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial District) to allow commercial uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-O
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 3.45 acres
Proposed Use: Commercial
Applicant: Neil Feaser, RKAA Architects, Inc.
Owner: Brian Page, Page Holdings, LLC
Representative: Neil Feaser, RKAA Architects, Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct.
20, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a technical
correction, by a vote of 14-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Southeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Peoria Avenue.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 3225, 3233, 3255, and 3255 W. Peoria Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 173
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 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
(Z-51-21-1) FROM C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.45-acre site located at the southeast
corner of 33rd Avenue and Peoria Avenue, in a portion of Section 26, Township 3 North,
and Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from
“C-O” (Commercial Office – Restricted Commercial District) to “C-2” (Intermediate
Commercial 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:
Page 174
1. All elevations of the building shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, and/or other overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
2. The public sidewalk along Peoria Avenue shall be a minimum width of 5 feet,
shall be detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area located
between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the
creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.
c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage at maturity.
3. One bicycle parking space shall be provided per 25 vehicle parking spaces,
near building entrances, shaded to 50 percent, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307(H) of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Page 175
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 176
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-51-21-1
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:
Tract "C" METRO PLAZA, according to the plat of record in the office of the County
Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book 194 of Maps, page 12 and
located in the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 2 East of the
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
EXCEPT BEGINNING at the Westerly most Southwest corner of said Tract "C";
THENCE North 00 degrees 00 minutes 53 seconds West (recorded North) along the
Westerly line of said Tract "C", a distance of 158.20 feet to a point which intersects an
existing masonry wall;
THENCE North 89 degrees 26 minutes 31 seconds East, along the centerline of said
masonry wall, a distance of 445.73 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Tract "C";
THENCE South 01 degrees 41 minutes 09 seconds East (recorded South 01 degrees
37 minutes 12 seconds East) along the Easterly line of said Tract "C", a distance of
158.22 feet to a point on the arc of a circle, the center of which bears South 89 degrees
55 minutes 37 seconds West, a distance of 20.00 feet;
THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of said circle through a central angle of 89
degrees 31 minutes 58 seconds (recorded 89 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds), a
distance of 31.25 feet (recorded 31.24 feet) to the South line of said Tract "C";
THENCE South 89 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds West, along said South line a
distance of 410.35 feet (recorded 410.11 feet) to a point on the arc of a circle, the center
of which bears 00 degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds, a distance of 20.00 feet;
THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of said circle through a central angle of 90
degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds (recorded 90 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds), a
distance of 31.60 feet (recorded 31.59 feet) to a point on the Westerly line of said Tract
"C" said point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 177
Page 178
Report
Southeast Corner of 33rd Avenue and Peoria Avenue (Ordinance G-6926)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-O (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District) to C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial District) to allow commercial uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-O
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 3.45 acres
Proposed Use: Commercial
Applicant: Neil Feaser, RKAA Architects, Inc.
Owner: Brian Page, Page Holdings, LLC
Representative: Neil Feaser, RKAA Architects, Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct.
20, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a technical
correction, by a vote of 14-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Southeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Peoria Avenue.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 3225, 3233, 3255, and 3255 W. Peoria Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 173
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 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
(Z-51-21-1) FROM C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.45-acre site located at the southeast
corner of 33rd Avenue and Peoria Avenue, in a portion of Section 26, Township 3 North,
and Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from
“C-O” (Commercial Office – Restricted Commercial District) to “C-2” (Intermediate
Commercial 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:
Page 174
1. All elevations of the building shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, and/or other overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
2. The public sidewalk along Peoria Avenue shall be a minimum width of 5 feet,
shall be detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area located
between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the
creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.
c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage at maturity.
3. One bicycle parking space shall be provided per 25 vehicle parking spaces,
near building entrances, shaded to 50 percent, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307(H) of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Page 175
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 176
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-51-21-1
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:
Tract "C" METRO PLAZA, according to the plat of record in the office of the County
Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, recorded in Book 194 of Maps, page 12 and
located in the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 2 East of the
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
EXCEPT BEGINNING at the Westerly most Southwest corner of said Tract "C";
THENCE North 00 degrees 00 minutes 53 seconds West (recorded North) along the
Westerly line of said Tract "C", a distance of 158.20 feet to a point which intersects an
existing masonry wall;
THENCE North 89 degrees 26 minutes 31 seconds East, along the centerline of said
masonry wall, a distance of 445.73 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Tract "C";
THENCE South 01 degrees 41 minutes 09 seconds East (recorded South 01 degrees
37 minutes 12 seconds East) along the Easterly line of said Tract "C", a distance of
158.22 feet to a point on the arc of a circle, the center of which bears South 89 degrees
55 minutes 37 seconds West, a distance of 20.00 feet;
THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of said circle through a central angle of 89
degrees 31 minutes 58 seconds (recorded 89 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds), a
distance of 31.25 feet (recorded 31.24 feet) to the South line of said Tract "C";
THENCE South 89 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds West, along said South line a
distance of 410.35 feet (recorded 410.11 feet) to a point on the arc of a circle, the center
of which bears 00 degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds, a distance of 20.00 feet;
THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of said circle through a central angle of 90
degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds (recorded 90 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds), a
distance of 31.60 feet (recorded 31.59 feet) to a point on the Westerly line of said Tract
"C" said point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 177
Page 178
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-28-21-2 -
Northeast Corner of the 29th Avenue Alignment and Sonoran Desert Drive
(Ordinance G-6925)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
PCD NBCOD, approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District,
North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) to R-3 NBCOD (Multifamily Residential District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District), R-4 NBCOD (Multifamily Residential District, North Black Canyon
Overlay), and C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) to remove the PCD designation and allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
Proposed Zoning: R-3 NBCOD (17.84 acres), R-4 NBCOD (16.21 acres), C-2 NBCOD
(5.99 acres)
Acreage: 40.04 acres
Proposed Use: Removal of PCD zoning and allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses.
Owner: Peter Burch, Britmet Ventures
Applicant: Dan Duffus, Blueprint Capital
Representative: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct.
14, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 4-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Page 179
Location
Northeast corner of the 29th Avenue alignment and Sonoran Desert Drive.
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 31402 N. 27th Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 180
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-28-21-2) FROM PCD NBCOD, APPROVED C-2 OR CP
M-R PCD NBCOD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK
DISTRICT, MID-RISE, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT,
NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO R-3 NBCOD
(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK
CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT), R-4 NBCOD (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY
DISTRICT), AND C-2 NBCOD (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
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 40.04-acre site located at the northeast
corner of the 29th Avenue alignment 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 “PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 of CP M-R PCD NBCOD” (Planned
Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate
Commercial or Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North
Page 181
Black Canyon Overlay District) to 17.84 acres of “R-3 NBCOD” (Multifamily Residential
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District), 16.21 acres of “R-4 NBCOD” (Multifamily
Residential District, North Black Canyon Overlay District), and 5.99 acres of “C-2
NBCOD” (Intermediate Commercial 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. A minimum of 7 percent of the gross site area of the R-3 NBCOD zoned portion
shall be retained as open space, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. A minimum of 20 percent of the gross site area of the R-4 NBCOD zoned
portion shall be retained as open space, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. The R-3 NBCOD zoned portion of the site shall be limited to a maximum height
of three stories and 36 feet.
4. The R-4 NBCOD zoned portion of the site shall be limited to a maximum height
of three stories and 40 feet.
5. The C-2 NBCOD zoned portion of the site shall be limited to a maximum height
of one story and 25 feet.
6. All building façades shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. All building and wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North
Black Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and
Page 182
blending with, rather than contrasting strongly, with the surrounding desert
environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Parking areas in the C-2 zoned portion of the site shall be at least 30 feet from
property lines adjacent to Sonoran Desert Drive and 29th Avenue or behind a
commercial building, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. If drive-through restaurants are developed, pick-up windows shall be
architecturally integrated in proportion, color, material, and texture to the
building it serves by providing awnings or architecturally integrated structures
for weather protection, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. All service areas in the C-2 zoned portion shall be screened to conceal trash
containers, recycling containers, loading docks, transformers, backflow
preventers, and other mechanical and or electrical equipment from eye level
adjacent to public streets and private drives, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
11. Pedestrian connectivity shall be provided between multifamily and commercial
developments, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for multifamily development per
Section 1307 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a minimum
of 18 bicycle parking spaces for the R-4 NBCOD zoned portion of the site and
a minimum of 13 bicycle parking spaces for the R-3 NBCOD zoned portion of
the site shall be provided for guests located near the offices or distributed
throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the
Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum of six bicycle parking spaces for the C-2 NBCOD zoned portion of
the site shall be provided near entrances of buildings or distributed throughout
the site and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. A minimum 10-foot-wide public multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within
the existing multi-use recreational trail easement (MURTE) along the north side
of Sonoran Desert Drive in accordance with Section 429 of the City of Phoenix
MAG Supplemental detail, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. All sidewalks along public streets shall be detached with a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on
Page 183
center or in equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
16. A minimum of 75% of pedestrian pathways and sidewalks shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
17. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
18. Pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building entrances, public
sidewalks, and community amenities, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
19. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for
traffic signal funding and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved
Traffic Impact Study.
20. The developer shall dedicate and construct the east half of 29th Avenue, as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 80 feet of right-of-way and construct a
City classified “E” section roadway for North Foothills Drive connecting to 29th
Avenue, or as otherwise determined through the approved Traffic Impact
Study. If constructed, a Shared-Use Path shall be provided along North
Foothills Drive in accordance with the City of Phoenix standard trail detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
22. The developer shall provide a minimum of two shaded pedestrian connections
from the development site to the wash and any designated trails, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
23. 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.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology survey report of the
Page 184
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
25. 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, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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.
27. 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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 185
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (4 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 186
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-28-21-2:
29TH AVE & SONORAN DESERT DRIVE
PARCEL 16A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of land being situated within the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5
North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3" Maricopa County brass cap, stamped T5N, R2E, 1/4 S14,
1/4 S13, RLS 29891, dated 2001 accepted as the East quarter corner of said Section 14,
from which a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the Center of said
Section bears South 89°32’56" West, 2639.42 feet;
Thence South 00°22'13" East, 1324.91 feet along the east line of said Southeast quarter
to a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 27239 accepted as the 1/16th corner (Northeast
corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14), being the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said east line, South 00°22'13" East, 1324.91 feet to the
Southeast corner of said Section 14;
Thence South 89°38'30" West, 659.90 feet along the south line of said Southeast quarter
to the southwest corner of the East half of the Southeast quarter of said Southeast
quarter;
Thence North 00°22'10" West, 70.00 feet along the west line of said East half to the
intersection of said west line and the north line of the south 70.00 feet of said Southeast
quarter;
Thence leaving said west line, North 00°07'02" West, 325.13 feet;
Thence North 60°01'38" East, 283.65 feet;
Thence North 33°37'52" West, 242.86 feet;
Thence North 15°19'46" West, 200.69 feet;
Thence North 06°58'06" West, 394.79 feet to the north line of the Southeast quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section 14;
Thence along said north line, North 89°35'43" East, 642.20 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Page 187
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 786,484 sq. ft. (18.0552 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
29TH AVE AND SONORAN DESERT DRIVE
PARCEL 16B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of land being situated within the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5
North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3" Maricopa County brass cap, stamped T5N, R2E, 1/4 S14,
1/4 S13, RLS 29891, dated 2001 accepted as the East quarter corner of said Section 14,
from which a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the Center of said
Section bears South 89°32’56" West, 2639.42 feet;
Thence South 00°22'13" East, 2649.82 feet along the east line of said Southeast quarter
to the Southeast corner of said Section 14;
Thence South 89°38'30" West, 659.90 feet along the south line of said Southeast quarter
to the southeast corner of the West half of the Southeast quarter of said Southeast
quarter, being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said south line, South 89°38'30" West, 659.90 feet to the
southwest corner of the West half of the Southeast quarter of said Southeast quarter;
Thence along said west line, North 00°22'06" West, 394.42 feet;
Thence leaving said west line, North 89°34'48" East, 661.33 feet;
Thence South 00°07'02" East, 325.13 feet to the intersection of the north line of the south
70.00 feet of said Southeast quarter and the east line of the West half of the Southeast
quarter of said Southeast quarter;
Thence along said east line, South 00°22'10" East, 70.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 260,744 sq. ft. (5.9859 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
Page 188
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
29TH AVE AND SONORAN DESERT DRIVE
PARCEL 16C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of land being situated within the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5
North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3" Maricopa County brass cap, stamped T5N, R2E, 1/4 S14,
1/4 S13, RLS 29891, dated 2001 accepted as the East quarter corner of said Section 14,
from which a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the Center of said
Section bears South 89°32’56" West, 2639.42 feet;
Thence South 00°22'13" East, 1324.91 feet along the east line of the Southeast quarter
of said Section to a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 27239 accepted as the 1/16th
corner (Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter) of said
Section;
Thence South 89°35'43" West, 642.20 feet along the north line of the Southeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter of said Section to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said north line, South 06°58'06" East, 394.79 feet;
Thence South 15°19'46" East, 200.69 feet;
Thence South 33°37'52" East, 242.86 feet;
Thence South 60°01'38" West, 283.65 feet;
Thence South 89°34'48" West, 661.33 feet to the west line of the Southeast quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section;
Thence North 00°22'06" West, 929.42 feet along said west line to a found 1/2 inch rebar
with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the 1/16th corner (Northwest corner of the Southeast
quarter of the Southeast quarter) of said Section;
Thence North 89°35'43" East, 677.56 feet along said north line of the Southeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 189
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 700,655 sq. ft. (16.0848 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
Page 190
Page 191
Report
Northeast Corner of the 29th Avenue Alignment and Sonoran Desert Drive
(Ordinance G-6925)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
PCD NBCOD, approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District,
North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) to R-3 NBCOD (Multifamily Residential District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District), R-4 NBCOD (Multifamily Residential District, North Black Canyon
Overlay), and C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) to remove the PCD designation and allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
Proposed Zoning: R-3 NBCOD (17.84 acres), R-4 NBCOD (16.21 acres), C-2 NBCOD
(5.99 acres)
Acreage: 40.04 acres
Proposed Use: Removal of PCD zoning and allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses.
Owner: Peter Burch, Britmet Ventures
Applicant: Dan Duffus, Blueprint Capital
Representative: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct.
14, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 4-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Page 179
Location
Northeast corner of the 29th Avenue alignment and Sonoran Desert Drive.
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 31402 N. 27th Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 180
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-28-21-2) FROM PCD NBCOD, APPROVED C-2 OR CP
M-R PCD NBCOD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK
DISTRICT, MID-RISE, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT,
NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO R-3 NBCOD
(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK
CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT), R-4 NBCOD (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY
DISTRICT), AND C-2 NBCOD (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
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 40.04-acre site located at the northeast
corner of the 29th Avenue alignment 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 “PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 of CP M-R PCD NBCOD” (Planned
Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate
Commercial or Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North
Page 181
Black Canyon Overlay District) to 17.84 acres of “R-3 NBCOD” (Multifamily Residential
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District), 16.21 acres of “R-4 NBCOD” (Multifamily
Residential District, North Black Canyon Overlay District), and 5.99 acres of “C-2
NBCOD” (Intermediate Commercial 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. A minimum of 7 percent of the gross site area of the R-3 NBCOD zoned portion
shall be retained as open space, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. A minimum of 20 percent of the gross site area of the R-4 NBCOD zoned
portion shall be retained as open space, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. The R-3 NBCOD zoned portion of the site shall be limited to a maximum height
of three stories and 36 feet.
4. The R-4 NBCOD zoned portion of the site shall be limited to a maximum height
of three stories and 40 feet.
5. The C-2 NBCOD zoned portion of the site shall be limited to a maximum height
of one story and 25 feet.
6. All building façades shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. All building and wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North
Black Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and
Page 182
blending with, rather than contrasting strongly, with the surrounding desert
environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Parking areas in the C-2 zoned portion of the site shall be at least 30 feet from
property lines adjacent to Sonoran Desert Drive and 29th Avenue or behind a
commercial building, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. If drive-through restaurants are developed, pick-up windows shall be
architecturally integrated in proportion, color, material, and texture to the
building it serves by providing awnings or architecturally integrated structures
for weather protection, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. All service areas in the C-2 zoned portion shall be screened to conceal trash
containers, recycling containers, loading docks, transformers, backflow
preventers, and other mechanical and or electrical equipment from eye level
adjacent to public streets and private drives, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
11. Pedestrian connectivity shall be provided between multifamily and commercial
developments, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for multifamily development per
Section 1307 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a minimum
of 18 bicycle parking spaces for the R-4 NBCOD zoned portion of the site and
a minimum of 13 bicycle parking spaces for the R-3 NBCOD zoned portion of
the site shall be provided for guests located near the offices or distributed
throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the
Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum of six bicycle parking spaces for the C-2 NBCOD zoned portion of
the site shall be provided near entrances of buildings or distributed throughout
the site and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. A minimum 10-foot-wide public multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within
the existing multi-use recreational trail easement (MURTE) along the north side
of Sonoran Desert Drive in accordance with Section 429 of the City of Phoenix
MAG Supplemental detail, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. All sidewalks along public streets shall be detached with a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on
Page 183
center or in equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
16. A minimum of 75% of pedestrian pathways and sidewalks shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
17. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
18. Pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building entrances, public
sidewalks, and community amenities, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
19. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for
traffic signal funding and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved
Traffic Impact Study.
20. The developer shall dedicate and construct the east half of 29th Avenue, as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 80 feet of right-of-way and construct a
City classified “E” section roadway for North Foothills Drive connecting to 29th
Avenue, or as otherwise determined through the approved Traffic Impact
Study. If constructed, a Shared-Use Path shall be provided along North
Foothills Drive in accordance with the City of Phoenix standard trail detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
22. The developer shall provide a minimum of two shaded pedestrian connections
from the development site to the wash and any designated trails, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
23. 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.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology survey report of the
Page 184
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
25. 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, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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.
27. 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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 185
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (4 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 186
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-28-21-2:
29TH AVE & SONORAN DESERT DRIVE
PARCEL 16A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of land being situated within the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5
North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3" Maricopa County brass cap, stamped T5N, R2E, 1/4 S14,
1/4 S13, RLS 29891, dated 2001 accepted as the East quarter corner of said Section 14,
from which a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the Center of said
Section bears South 89°32’56" West, 2639.42 feet;
Thence South 00°22'13" East, 1324.91 feet along the east line of said Southeast quarter
to a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 27239 accepted as the 1/16th corner (Northeast
corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14), being the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said east line, South 00°22'13" East, 1324.91 feet to the
Southeast corner of said Section 14;
Thence South 89°38'30" West, 659.90 feet along the south line of said Southeast quarter
to the southwest corner of the East half of the Southeast quarter of said Southeast
quarter;
Thence North 00°22'10" West, 70.00 feet along the west line of said East half to the
intersection of said west line and the north line of the south 70.00 feet of said Southeast
quarter;
Thence leaving said west line, North 00°07'02" West, 325.13 feet;
Thence North 60°01'38" East, 283.65 feet;
Thence North 33°37'52" West, 242.86 feet;
Thence North 15°19'46" West, 200.69 feet;
Thence North 06°58'06" West, 394.79 feet to the north line of the Southeast quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section 14;
Thence along said north line, North 89°35'43" East, 642.20 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Page 187
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 786,484 sq. ft. (18.0552 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
29TH AVE AND SONORAN DESERT DRIVE
PARCEL 16B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of land being situated within the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5
North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3" Maricopa County brass cap, stamped T5N, R2E, 1/4 S14,
1/4 S13, RLS 29891, dated 2001 accepted as the East quarter corner of said Section 14,
from which a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the Center of said
Section bears South 89°32’56" West, 2639.42 feet;
Thence South 00°22'13" East, 2649.82 feet along the east line of said Southeast quarter
to the Southeast corner of said Section 14;
Thence South 89°38'30" West, 659.90 feet along the south line of said Southeast quarter
to the southeast corner of the West half of the Southeast quarter of said Southeast
quarter, being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said south line, South 89°38'30" West, 659.90 feet to the
southwest corner of the West half of the Southeast quarter of said Southeast quarter;
Thence along said west line, North 00°22'06" West, 394.42 feet;
Thence leaving said west line, North 89°34'48" East, 661.33 feet;
Thence South 00°07'02" East, 325.13 feet to the intersection of the north line of the south
70.00 feet of said Southeast quarter and the east line of the West half of the Southeast
quarter of said Southeast quarter;
Thence along said east line, South 00°22'10" East, 70.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 260,744 sq. ft. (5.9859 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
Page 188
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
29TH AVE AND SONORAN DESERT DRIVE
PARCEL 16C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of land being situated within the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5
North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3" Maricopa County brass cap, stamped T5N, R2E, 1/4 S14,
1/4 S13, RLS 29891, dated 2001 accepted as the East quarter corner of said Section 14,
from which a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the Center of said
Section bears South 89°32’56" West, 2639.42 feet;
Thence South 00°22'13" East, 1324.91 feet along the east line of the Southeast quarter
of said Section to a found 1/2 inch rebar with cap, RLS 27239 accepted as the 1/16th
corner (Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter) of said
Section;
Thence South 89°35'43" West, 642.20 feet along the north line of the Southeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter of said Section to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said north line, South 06°58'06" East, 394.79 feet;
Thence South 15°19'46" East, 200.69 feet;
Thence South 33°37'52" East, 242.86 feet;
Thence South 60°01'38" West, 283.65 feet;
Thence South 89°34'48" West, 661.33 feet to the west line of the Southeast quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section;
Thence North 00°22'06" West, 929.42 feet along said west line to a found 1/2 inch rebar
with cap, RLS 21081 accepted as the 1/16th corner (Northwest corner of the Southeast
quarter of the Southeast quarter) of said Section;
Thence North 89°35'43" East, 677.56 feet along said north line of the Southeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 189
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 700,655 sq. ft. (16.0848 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
Page 190
Page 191
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-33-21-4 -
Northeast corner of 1st Avenue and Holly Street (Ordinance G-6921)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
P-2 TOD-1 (Parking, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to WU
Code T4:2 MT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:2 District, Transit Midtown Character
Area) to allow single-family attached development.
Summary
Current Zoning: P-2 TOD-1
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T4:2 MT
Acreage: 0.71 acres
Proposed Use: Single-Family attached
Applicant: Holly 6, LLC
Owner: City of Phoenix
Representative: Studio MA, Inc
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct. 4, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a modification, by a
vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Northeast corner of 1st Avenue and Holly St.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 36 and 42 W. Holly St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 192
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
(Z-33-21-4) FROM P-2 TOD-1 (PARKING, INTERIM TRANSIT-
ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE) TO WU CODE
T4:2 MT (WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT 4:2 DISTRICT,
TRANSIT MIDTOWN CHARACTER AREA).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.71 acre site located at the northeast corner
of 1st Avenue and Holly Street, in a portion of Section 32, Township 2 North and Range
3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “P-2 TOD-
1” (Parking, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to “WU Code T4:2
MT” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:2 District, Transit Midtown Character Area).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 193
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet
2. The project shall not exceed 6 lots and/or 6 dwelling units.
3. The existing streetscape landscape area between the curb and sidewalk shall
be replenished, as required by Chapter 13, Section 1309.B of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the western property boundary shall be
planted with shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings,
excluding driveway entrances, and all required trees shall be a minimum 3-inch
caliper. Existing trees may be utilized toward the requirement. The above
conditions shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The developer shall provide permeable and/or cool pavement in the alley of no
greater width than existing today from the subject site to Cypress Avenue, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
7. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
8. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
9. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 194
11. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeff Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
Page 195
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 196
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-33-21-4
36 + 42 W. HOLLY STREET, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
APN: 118-51-046, 118-51-047
Lots 6 and 7, block 2, las palmas, a subdivision recorded in book 4 of maps, page 15,
records of maricopa county, arizona. Except that part of lot 7, block 2, las palmas,
according to the plat of record in the office of the county recorder of maricopa county,
arizona, in book 4 of maps, at page 15 lying southwesterly of the arc of a circular curve,
concave northeasterly, having a radius of 12 feet, and being tangent to the west and
south lines of said lot.
Page 197
Page 198
Staff Report Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
Encanto Village Planning Committee October 4, 2021
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 4, 2021
Request From: P-2 TOD-1 (Parking, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay One)
Request To: WU Code T4:2 MT (Walkable Urban
Code, Transect 4:2, Transit Midtown
Character Area)
Proposed Use: Single-Family Attached
Location: Northeast corner of 1st Avenue and
Holly Street
Owner: City of Phoenix
Applicant: Holly 6, LLC
Representative: Studio MA, Inc
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
per acre
Street Map Local
Holly Street 35 foot north half street
Classification Street
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Establish design
standards and guidelines for parking lots and structures, setback and build-to
lines, blank wall space, shade, and other elements affecting pedestrians, to
encourage pedestrian activity and identify options for providing pedestrian-
oriented design in different types of development.
The development includes design and development standards to encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use. These standards include a shaded streetscape, units
fronting onto the public sidewalk, parking situated away from the public street, and on-
site amenities.
Page 199
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The development includes bicycle facilities to encourage bicycling and transit use to
become a way of life. Features include secure bicycle parking for residents,
convenient racks for guests which will complement nearby bikeway improvements
including the 3rd and 5th Avenue project.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development includes robust tree plantings between the back of curb and the
building fronts and a detached sidewalk that will be shaded to 75 percent as
stipulated. These improvements will serve not only the residents of the development
but will also make the walk from the adjacent neighborhood to the light rail and other
nearby amenities more comfortable.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposal will introduce ownership housing opportunities in Central Phoenix with
close access to two light rail stations, a major community park, and the Encanto
Village Core. These additional housing opportunities supports goals contained in the
Housing Phoenix Plan to preserve and create 50,000 units by 2030.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework: Background Item No.
4.
Midtown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan: Background Item No. 5.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 10.
Housing Phoenix: Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 12
Page 200
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant Land P-2 TOD-1
East Parking Structure P-2 HRI TOD-1
West Single-Family Residence R1-6 HP TOD-1
P-1 HRI TOD-1
North Surface Parking
P-1 TOD-1
South (across Holly
Parking Structure P-2 TOD-1
Street)
Walkable Urban Code
Transect 4:2 MT
Single Family Attached Development
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Gross Acreage No Minimum 0.71
Total Number of Units Maximum of 11 6
Density No Maximum 8.45
Height 3 stories or 40 feet for first 150 2 stories and 25 feet
feet; 1 foot in 1 foot increase to (Met)
48-foot height, 4-story
maximum. 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)
Site Standards
Perimeter Standards
South (Holly Street) Minimum 10-foot landscape 10 feet (Met)
tract (waived when within 2,000
feet of a light rail station)
Interior (East and North) Minimum 5-foot landscape 12 feet (Met)
setback
Interior (West, Adjacent to Minimum 10-foot landscape 10 feet (Met)
Single-Family Zoning) setback
Page 201
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
Maximum Block Length 200-foot maximum 120 feet (Met)
Open Space Minimum 5 percent 5.8 percent (Met)
Streetscape 5-foot landscape detachment 5 feet and 5 feet
with 5-foot wide sidewalk (Met)
Lot Standards
Minimum Width 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Alley Access Within infill development (Met)
district: alley access allowed
Frontage Treatment Entryway shall be elevated, Feature to
depressed, or designed to accentuate entrance
accentuate the primary (Met)
entrance
Lot Coverage 100 percent, per Section 615 71 percent (Met)
Parking Requirement 9 covered spaces required 9 garage spaces
and 6 on-street
guest spaces. (Met)
*Variance or plan revision required
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 0.71 acres located at the northeast corner of 1st
Avenue and Holly Street from P-2 TOD-1 (Parking, Interim Transit-Oriented
Zoning Overlay One) to Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:2 MT (WU Code
T4:2, Interim Transit Midtown Character Area) for the purpose of single-family
attached development.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The site is vacant and, per historic aerial photographs, has been entirely vacant
since at least 1986. The Zoning Sketch Map, included as an exhibit to this
report, depicts zoning entitlements for the subject site and the surrounding area.
To the north, east, and south of the subject site are existing parking areas with
zoning entitlements that limit the properties exclusively to parking uses. To the
west of the subject site is a single-family residence zoned R1-6 HP TOD-1
(Single-Family Residence District, Historic Preservation, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay One) located in the Willo Historic District
Neighborhood.
Page 202
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
3. The General Plan Land Use General Plan Land Use Map Excerpt; Source: Planning
Map depicts a land use and Development Department
designation of Residential 3.5
to 5.0 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed density of 8.45
dwelling units per acre is not
consistent with the
designation but a General
Plan Amendment is not
required because the site
does not exceed 10 acres.
The subject site is also
located within the study areas
for the Transit Oriented
Strategic Policy Framework
and the Midtown Transit
Oriented Development Policy
Plan areas.
4. Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework,
Development Strategic Place Type Map Excerpt; Source: Planning and
Development Department
Policy Framework:
The Transit Oriented
Development Strategic
Policy Framework is part of
the City’s General Plan.
The framework identifies
planning typologies to
describe urban
environments.
The subject site is located
within 800 feet of the light
rail station located at
Encanto Boulevard which
is identified as a Medium
Urban Center Place Type.
Page 203
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
The Medium Urban Center Place Type provides policy support for three to six
story buildings with allowances up to ten when incentive criteria are met. The
project's proposed intensity and scale are appropriate for this location given the
proximity of single-family homes.
5. Midtown TOD Policy Plan:
The site is located within the Midtown TOD Planning Area which is bound by 7th
Avenue on the west, 7th Street on the east, McDowell Road on the south, and
Indian School Road on the north. The policy plan for the Midtown TOD District
provides a blueprint for fully achieving the transformative potential of light rail in
a sustainable manner.
Changes advocated in the Midtown TOD Policy Plan, Walk-Shed Map from Light
plan can lower transportation Rail Excerpt; Source: Planning and Development
Department
costs for residents, create
new business opportunities,
encourage active, healthy
lifestyles, ensure Phoenix
increases its competitive
advantage in the global
marketplace, and improve
prosperity by growing the
economy in locations with
existing infrastructure and
public services.
The Midtown TOD District
Plan projects a shortfall of
17,520 housing units by 2035
and articulates a goal for
more housing and
employment in proximity to
high-capacity transit.
The proposed project will produce six single-family homes, adjacent to existing
single-family homes, in close proximity to light rail.
6. The Encanto Village Character Plan was approved and adopted into the
Phoenix General Plan through General Plan Amendment GPA-1-19. The project
advances the following items identified in the Encanto Village Character Plan:
• Land Use Principle: Include a mix of housing types and densities where
appropriate within each village that support a broad range of lifestyles.
• Design Principle: Enhance the compatibility of residential infill projects by
Page 204
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
carefully designing the edges of the development to be sensitive to
adjacent existing housing. Create landscape buffers and other amenities
to link new and existing development.
• Design Principle: Create new development or redevelopment that is
sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods
and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative
impact(s) on the residential properties.
PROPOSAL
7. Site Plan Conceptual Site Plan; Source: Studio MA
The applicant is proposing
six single-family attached
dwelling units that will
front on Holly Street and
have garages which are
loaded from the north.
Between each of the
dwelling units and their
respective garage will be a
small private yard. In
addition to the two car
garages accessible from
the rear, several guest
spaces will be provided on
the street as allowed in
the Infill Development
District and a series of
guest bicycle parking
spaces near the front
building entrances.
To promote compatibility
with the Willo Historic
District, staff is
recommending Stipulation Nos. 1 – 4 as follows:
• Stipulation No. 1 to require a maximum building height of 30 feet.
• Stipulation No. 2 to limit the development to six lots or dwelling units.
• Stipulation No. 3 to require the landscape area between the back of curb
and the sidewalk be replenished with shade trees.
• Stipulation No. 4 to require enhanced landscape plantings along the west
property line.
Page 205
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
8. Conceptual Building Elevations
The applicant is proposing a design which features wood, metal wall panels,
and stucco. Oriented to Holly Street, all six units feature prominent entrances as
which function as a focal point for each unit and all feature semi-private porches
enclosed by a passive solar screen wall made of wood. To reduce potential
privacy concerns from the property owner to the west, the western orientation of
the building includes a limited number of windows.
Conceptual Building and Streetscape Renderings; Source: Studio MA
Page 206
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
STUDIES AND POLICIES
9. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached
from the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to
provide thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island
effect. To re-establish the tree canopy in complement to the existing canopy in
the Willo Historic District Neighborhood, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 4
to replenish the landscape area between the back of curb and sidewalk with
shade trees.
10. Complete Streets Guidelines:
The City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The Walkable Urban Code is
designed to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented development and
includes provisions to advance the goals of the policy guide.
11. 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 the vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant or
underutilized land in a more sustainable fashion.
12. Zero Waste Phoenix PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and
Page 207
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The provision of recycling
containers was not addressed in the applicant’s submittals.
COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
13. As of the writing of this report, several letters of community correspondence
have been received but were classified by their authors as general inquiries and
did not rise to the point of either support or opposition.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Fire Department commented that the site plan must comply with the
Phoenix Fire Code and further indicated there are no problems anticipated with
the case. 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.
15. The Street Transportation Department comments that the existing landscape
planter between the back of curb and the sidewalk should be replenished with
shade trees. Additionally, the department provided stipulations to: require a
right-of-way dedication, require the alley be paved to the nearest streets, require
all streets and improvements in the right-of-way be constructed to ADA
standards; these are included in Stipulation Nos. 5 and 6 respectively.
16. The Public Transit Department commented on the need for a robust system of
pedestrian pathways on the site to efficiently convey new residents toward the
light rail and bus routes. These are addressed within the provisions of the
Walkable Urban Code.
OTHER
17. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
18. The Aviation Department requires the disclosure of the existence and
operational characteristics of Phoenix SkyHarbor Airport be disclosed to tenants
and buyers, an avigation agreement be recorded, and that a no-hazard
determination be obtained from the FAA. These are addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 7 - 9.
Page 208
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
19. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal is compatible with the context of the area and utilizes setbacks and
other design considerations to create a transition from the highest intensity near
Central Avenue to the lower residential intensities located within the Willo Historic
District Neighborhood.
2. The development advances the vision and recommendations contained in the
Midtown TOD Policy Plan by redeveloping a vacant site with new residential units
in a scale compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
3. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with the Housing
Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.
Stipulations
1. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet
2. The project shall not exceed 6 lots and/or 6 dwelling units.
3. The existing streetscape landscape area between the curb and sidewalk shall be
replenished, as required by Chapter 13, Section 1309.B of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the western property boundary shall be
planted with shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings,
excluding driveway entrances, and all required trees shall be a minimum 3-inch
caliper. Existing trees may be utilized toward the requirement. The above
conditions shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street standards for
the full length of the alley to the two nearest cross streets unless otherwise
modified by a technical appeal, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 209
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
8. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
9. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Nick Klimek
September 27, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped August 19, 2021 (3 pages)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped August 19, 2021 (4 pages)
Conceptual Renderings date stamped August 19, 2021 (3 pages)
Page 210
R1-6 C-2 HRI
P-1* CYPRESS ST
P-1 HRI
P-1 Z-57-97
HP * P-1 C-2
Z-10-90
P-2 H-R
HRI
R1-6 HP
Z-26-06 P-2 * C-1
Z-97-97
HRI
HOLLY ST
R1-6 *
HP P-2 * C-2
1ST AVE
Z-10-90 Z-115-81 H-R *
Z-115-81
Transit Overlay
R-3 * HP
Z-10-90
UR* Z-115-81
Z-94-03 District (TOD-1)
I Miles
Gr a
nd C
a n al Z-33-21
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Holly 6 LLC
FROM:
P-2 TOD-1 ( 0.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/15/2021
Z-33-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.71 Acres QS 13-27 G-8 TO: WU Code T4:2 ( 0.71 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
P-2 TOD-1 N/A N/A
WU Code T4:2 No Maximum N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-33-21.mxd
Page 211
R1-6 C-2 HRI
P-1* CYPRESS ST
P-1 HRI
P-1 Z-57-97
HP * P-1 C-2
Z-10-90
P-2 H-R
HRI
R1-6 HP
Z-26-06 P-2 * C-1
Z-97-97
HRI
HOLLY ST
R1-6 *
HP P-2 * C-2
1ST AVE
Z-10-90 Z-115-81 H-R *
Z-115-81
Transit Overlay
R-3 * HP
Z-10-90
UR* Z-115-81
Z-94-03 District (TOD-1)
I Miles
Gr a
nd C
a n al Z-33-21
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Holly 6 LLC
FROM:
P-2 TOD-1 ( 0.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/15/2021
Z-33-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.71 Acres QS 13-27 G-8 TO: WU Code T4:2 ( 0.71 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
P-2 TOD-1 N/A N/A
WU Code T4:2 No Maximum N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-33-21.mxd
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Report
Northeast corner of 1st Avenue and Holly Street (Ordinance G-6921)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
P-2 TOD-1 (Parking, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to WU
Code T4:2 MT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:2 District, Transit Midtown Character
Area) to allow single-family attached development.
Summary
Current Zoning: P-2 TOD-1
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T4:2 MT
Acreage: 0.71 acres
Proposed Use: Single-Family attached
Applicant: Holly 6, LLC
Owner: City of Phoenix
Representative: Studio MA, Inc
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct. 4, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a modification, by a
vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Northeast corner of 1st Avenue and Holly St.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 36 and 42 W. Holly St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 192
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
(Z-33-21-4) FROM P-2 TOD-1 (PARKING, INTERIM TRANSIT-
ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE) TO WU CODE
T4:2 MT (WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT 4:2 DISTRICT,
TRANSIT MIDTOWN CHARACTER AREA).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.71 acre site located at the northeast corner
of 1st Avenue and Holly Street, in a portion of Section 32, Township 2 North and Range
3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “P-2 TOD-
1” (Parking, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to “WU Code T4:2
MT” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:2 District, Transit Midtown Character Area).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 193
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet
2. The project shall not exceed 6 lots and/or 6 dwelling units.
3. The existing streetscape landscape area between the curb and sidewalk shall
be replenished, as required by Chapter 13, Section 1309.B of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the western property boundary shall be
planted with shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings,
excluding driveway entrances, and all required trees shall be a minimum 3-inch
caliper. Existing trees may be utilized toward the requirement. The above
conditions shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The developer shall provide permeable and/or cool pavement in the alley of no
greater width than existing today from the subject site to Cypress Avenue, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
7. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
8. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
9. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 194
11. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeff Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
Page 195
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 196
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-33-21-4
36 + 42 W. HOLLY STREET, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
APN: 118-51-046, 118-51-047
Lots 6 and 7, block 2, las palmas, a subdivision recorded in book 4 of maps, page 15,
records of maricopa county, arizona. Except that part of lot 7, block 2, las palmas,
according to the plat of record in the office of the county recorder of maricopa county,
arizona, in book 4 of maps, at page 15 lying southwesterly of the arc of a circular curve,
concave northeasterly, having a radius of 12 feet, and being tangent to the west and
south lines of said lot.
Page 197
Page 198
Staff Report Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
Encanto Village Planning Committee October 4, 2021
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 4, 2021
Request From: P-2 TOD-1 (Parking, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay One)
Request To: WU Code T4:2 MT (Walkable Urban
Code, Transect 4:2, Transit Midtown
Character Area)
Proposed Use: Single-Family Attached
Location: Northeast corner of 1st Avenue and
Holly Street
Owner: City of Phoenix
Applicant: Holly 6, LLC
Representative: Studio MA, Inc
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
per acre
Street Map Local
Holly Street 35 foot north half street
Classification Street
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Establish design
standards and guidelines for parking lots and structures, setback and build-to
lines, blank wall space, shade, and other elements affecting pedestrians, to
encourage pedestrian activity and identify options for providing pedestrian-
oriented design in different types of development.
The development includes design and development standards to encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use. These standards include a shaded streetscape, units
fronting onto the public sidewalk, parking situated away from the public street, and on-
site amenities.
Page 199
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The development includes bicycle facilities to encourage bicycling and transit use to
become a way of life. Features include secure bicycle parking for residents,
convenient racks for guests which will complement nearby bikeway improvements
including the 3rd and 5th Avenue project.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development includes robust tree plantings between the back of curb and the
building fronts and a detached sidewalk that will be shaded to 75 percent as
stipulated. These improvements will serve not only the residents of the development
but will also make the walk from the adjacent neighborhood to the light rail and other
nearby amenities more comfortable.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposal will introduce ownership housing opportunities in Central Phoenix with
close access to two light rail stations, a major community park, and the Encanto
Village Core. These additional housing opportunities supports goals contained in the
Housing Phoenix Plan to preserve and create 50,000 units by 2030.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework: Background Item No.
4.
Midtown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan: Background Item No. 5.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 10.
Housing Phoenix: Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 12
Page 200
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant Land P-2 TOD-1
East Parking Structure P-2 HRI TOD-1
West Single-Family Residence R1-6 HP TOD-1
P-1 HRI TOD-1
North Surface Parking
P-1 TOD-1
South (across Holly
Parking Structure P-2 TOD-1
Street)
Walkable Urban Code
Transect 4:2 MT
Single Family Attached Development
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Gross Acreage No Minimum 0.71
Total Number of Units Maximum of 11 6
Density No Maximum 8.45
Height 3 stories or 40 feet for first 150 2 stories and 25 feet
feet; 1 foot in 1 foot increase to (Met)
48-foot height, 4-story
maximum. 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)
Site Standards
Perimeter Standards
South (Holly Street) Minimum 10-foot landscape 10 feet (Met)
tract (waived when within 2,000
feet of a light rail station)
Interior (East and North) Minimum 5-foot landscape 12 feet (Met)
setback
Interior (West, Adjacent to Minimum 10-foot landscape 10 feet (Met)
Single-Family Zoning) setback
Page 201
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
Maximum Block Length 200-foot maximum 120 feet (Met)
Open Space Minimum 5 percent 5.8 percent (Met)
Streetscape 5-foot landscape detachment 5 feet and 5 feet
with 5-foot wide sidewalk (Met)
Lot Standards
Minimum Width 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Alley Access Within infill development (Met)
district: alley access allowed
Frontage Treatment Entryway shall be elevated, Feature to
depressed, or designed to accentuate entrance
accentuate the primary (Met)
entrance
Lot Coverage 100 percent, per Section 615 71 percent (Met)
Parking Requirement 9 covered spaces required 9 garage spaces
and 6 on-street
guest spaces. (Met)
*Variance or plan revision required
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 0.71 acres located at the northeast corner of 1st
Avenue and Holly Street from P-2 TOD-1 (Parking, Interim Transit-Oriented
Zoning Overlay One) to Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:2 MT (WU Code
T4:2, Interim Transit Midtown Character Area) for the purpose of single-family
attached development.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The site is vacant and, per historic aerial photographs, has been entirely vacant
since at least 1986. The Zoning Sketch Map, included as an exhibit to this
report, depicts zoning entitlements for the subject site and the surrounding area.
To the north, east, and south of the subject site are existing parking areas with
zoning entitlements that limit the properties exclusively to parking uses. To the
west of the subject site is a single-family residence zoned R1-6 HP TOD-1
(Single-Family Residence District, Historic Preservation, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay One) located in the Willo Historic District
Neighborhood.
Page 202
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
3. The General Plan Land Use General Plan Land Use Map Excerpt; Source: Planning
Map depicts a land use and Development Department
designation of Residential 3.5
to 5.0 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed density of 8.45
dwelling units per acre is not
consistent with the
designation but a General
Plan Amendment is not
required because the site
does not exceed 10 acres.
The subject site is also
located within the study areas
for the Transit Oriented
Strategic Policy Framework
and the Midtown Transit
Oriented Development Policy
Plan areas.
4. Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework,
Development Strategic Place Type Map Excerpt; Source: Planning and
Development Department
Policy Framework:
The Transit Oriented
Development Strategic
Policy Framework is part of
the City’s General Plan.
The framework identifies
planning typologies to
describe urban
environments.
The subject site is located
within 800 feet of the light
rail station located at
Encanto Boulevard which
is identified as a Medium
Urban Center Place Type.
Page 203
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
The Medium Urban Center Place Type provides policy support for three to six
story buildings with allowances up to ten when incentive criteria are met. The
project's proposed intensity and scale are appropriate for this location given the
proximity of single-family homes.
5. Midtown TOD Policy Plan:
The site is located within the Midtown TOD Planning Area which is bound by 7th
Avenue on the west, 7th Street on the east, McDowell Road on the south, and
Indian School Road on the north. The policy plan for the Midtown TOD District
provides a blueprint for fully achieving the transformative potential of light rail in
a sustainable manner.
Changes advocated in the Midtown TOD Policy Plan, Walk-Shed Map from Light
plan can lower transportation Rail Excerpt; Source: Planning and Development
Department
costs for residents, create
new business opportunities,
encourage active, healthy
lifestyles, ensure Phoenix
increases its competitive
advantage in the global
marketplace, and improve
prosperity by growing the
economy in locations with
existing infrastructure and
public services.
The Midtown TOD District
Plan projects a shortfall of
17,520 housing units by 2035
and articulates a goal for
more housing and
employment in proximity to
high-capacity transit.
The proposed project will produce six single-family homes, adjacent to existing
single-family homes, in close proximity to light rail.
6. The Encanto Village Character Plan was approved and adopted into the
Phoenix General Plan through General Plan Amendment GPA-1-19. The project
advances the following items identified in the Encanto Village Character Plan:
• Land Use Principle: Include a mix of housing types and densities where
appropriate within each village that support a broad range of lifestyles.
• Design Principle: Enhance the compatibility of residential infill projects by
Page 204
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
carefully designing the edges of the development to be sensitive to
adjacent existing housing. Create landscape buffers and other amenities
to link new and existing development.
• Design Principle: Create new development or redevelopment that is
sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods
and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative
impact(s) on the residential properties.
PROPOSAL
7. Site Plan Conceptual Site Plan; Source: Studio MA
The applicant is proposing
six single-family attached
dwelling units that will
front on Holly Street and
have garages which are
loaded from the north.
Between each of the
dwelling units and their
respective garage will be a
small private yard. In
addition to the two car
garages accessible from
the rear, several guest
spaces will be provided on
the street as allowed in
the Infill Development
District and a series of
guest bicycle parking
spaces near the front
building entrances.
To promote compatibility
with the Willo Historic
District, staff is
recommending Stipulation Nos. 1 – 4 as follows:
• Stipulation No. 1 to require a maximum building height of 30 feet.
• Stipulation No. 2 to limit the development to six lots or dwelling units.
• Stipulation No. 3 to require the landscape area between the back of curb
and the sidewalk be replenished with shade trees.
• Stipulation No. 4 to require enhanced landscape plantings along the west
property line.
Page 205
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
8. Conceptual Building Elevations
The applicant is proposing a design which features wood, metal wall panels,
and stucco. Oriented to Holly Street, all six units feature prominent entrances as
which function as a focal point for each unit and all feature semi-private porches
enclosed by a passive solar screen wall made of wood. To reduce potential
privacy concerns from the property owner to the west, the western orientation of
the building includes a limited number of windows.
Conceptual Building and Streetscape Renderings; Source: Studio MA
Page 206
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
STUDIES AND POLICIES
9. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached
from the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to
provide thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island
effect. To re-establish the tree canopy in complement to the existing canopy in
the Willo Historic District Neighborhood, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 4
to replenish the landscape area between the back of curb and sidewalk with
shade trees.
10. Complete Streets Guidelines:
The City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The Walkable Urban Code is
designed to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented development and
includes provisions to advance the goals of the policy guide.
11. 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 the vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant or
underutilized land in a more sustainable fashion.
12. Zero Waste Phoenix PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and
Page 207
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The provision of recycling
containers was not addressed in the applicant’s submittals.
COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
13. As of the writing of this report, several letters of community correspondence
have been received but were classified by their authors as general inquiries and
did not rise to the point of either support or opposition.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Fire Department commented that the site plan must comply with the
Phoenix Fire Code and further indicated there are no problems anticipated with
the case. 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.
15. The Street Transportation Department comments that the existing landscape
planter between the back of curb and the sidewalk should be replenished with
shade trees. Additionally, the department provided stipulations to: require a
right-of-way dedication, require the alley be paved to the nearest streets, require
all streets and improvements in the right-of-way be constructed to ADA
standards; these are included in Stipulation Nos. 5 and 6 respectively.
16. The Public Transit Department commented on the need for a robust system of
pedestrian pathways on the site to efficiently convey new residents toward the
light rail and bus routes. These are addressed within the provisions of the
Walkable Urban Code.
OTHER
17. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
18. The Aviation Department requires the disclosure of the existence and
operational characteristics of Phoenix SkyHarbor Airport be disclosed to tenants
and buyers, an avigation agreement be recorded, and that a no-hazard
determination be obtained from the FAA. These are addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 7 - 9.
Page 208
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
19. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal is compatible with the context of the area and utilizes setbacks and
other design considerations to create a transition from the highest intensity near
Central Avenue to the lower residential intensities located within the Willo Historic
District Neighborhood.
2. The development advances the vision and recommendations contained in the
Midtown TOD Policy Plan by redeveloping a vacant site with new residential units
in a scale compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
3. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with the Housing
Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.
Stipulations
1. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet
2. The project shall not exceed 6 lots and/or 6 dwelling units.
3. The existing streetscape landscape area between the curb and sidewalk shall be
replenished, as required by Chapter 13, Section 1309.B of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the western property boundary shall be
planted with shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings,
excluding driveway entrances, and all required trees shall be a minimum 3-inch
caliper. Existing trees may be utilized toward the requirement. The above
conditions shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street standards for
the full length of the alley to the two nearest cross streets unless otherwise
modified by a technical appeal, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 209
Staff Report: Z-33-21-4
September 27, 2021
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
8. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
9. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Nick Klimek
September 27, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped August 19, 2021 (3 pages)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped August 19, 2021 (4 pages)
Conceptual Renderings date stamped August 19, 2021 (3 pages)
Page 210
R1-6 C-2 HRI
P-1* CYPRESS ST
P-1 HRI
P-1 Z-57-97
HP * P-1 C-2
Z-10-90
P-2 H-R
HRI
R1-6 HP
Z-26-06 P-2 * C-1
Z-97-97
HRI
HOLLY ST
R1-6 *
HP P-2 * C-2
1ST AVE
Z-10-90 Z-115-81 H-R *
Z-115-81
Transit Overlay
R-3 * HP
Z-10-90
UR* Z-115-81
Z-94-03 District (TOD-1)
I Miles
Gr a
nd C
a n al Z-33-21
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Holly 6 LLC
FROM:
P-2 TOD-1 ( 0.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/15/2021
Z-33-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.71 Acres QS 13-27 G-8 TO: WU Code T4:2 ( 0.71 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
P-2 TOD-1 N/A N/A
WU Code T4:2 No Maximum N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-33-21.mxd
Page 211
R1-6 C-2 HRI
P-1* CYPRESS ST
P-1 HRI
P-1 Z-57-97
HP * P-1 C-2
Z-10-90
P-2 H-R
HRI
R1-6 HP
Z-26-06 P-2 * C-1
Z-97-97
HRI
HOLLY ST
R1-6 *
HP P-2 * C-2
1ST AVE
Z-10-90 Z-115-81 H-R *
Z-115-81
Transit Overlay
R-3 * HP
Z-10-90
UR* Z-115-81
Z-94-03 District (TOD-1)
I Miles
Gr a
nd C
a n al Z-33-21
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Holly 6 LLC
FROM:
P-2 TOD-1 ( 0.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/15/2021
Z-33-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.71 Acres QS 13-27 G-8 TO: WU Code T4:2 ( 0.71 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
P-2 TOD-1 N/A N/A
WU Code T4:2 No Maximum N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-33-21.mxd
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-50-21-6 -
Approximately 275 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of 51st Street and Elliot
Road (Ordinance G-6923)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR (Intermediate
Commercial, Density Waiver, Height Waiver) to allow multifamily residential with a
height and density waiver.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR
Acreage: 3.26 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: Josh Wartlieb
Applicant: Larry Lazarus, Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C.
Representative: Larry Lazarus, Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee heard this case on
Oct. 25, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of
11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 275 feet east of the northeast corner of 51st Street and Elliot Road.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 5121 E. La Puente Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 223
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-50-21-6) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL)
TO C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
DENSITY WAIVER, HEIGHT WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.26-acre site located approximately 275 feet
east of the northeast corner of 51st Street and Elliot Road in a portion of Section 8,
Township 1 South, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is
hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) to “C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR”
(Intermediate Commercial, Density Waiver, Height Waiver).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 224
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 110 dwelling units and
utilize the R-5 zoning district development standards.
2. Additions to existing buildings or new buildings constructed on the site shall be
developed to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. 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.
b. All building elevations 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.
3. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper
large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, and five 5-gallon shrubs per tree. Existing trees may be used to
meet this requirement, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a
minimum, distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse, community room or gym.
c. One picnic area that includes one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a
picnic table.
d. Two benches or seating features.
5. A shade exhibit shall be submitted with the preliminary site plan submittal, with
shade calculations based on the summer solstice at 12:00pm (noon), as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Pedestrian walkways, including the sidewalk along La Puente Avenue and 50th
Place, shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using large canopy
Page 225
drought-tolerant shade trees at maturity and/or architectural shade, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
7. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department.
8. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all vehicular points of ingress
and/or egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the
public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. “Secure/Covered Facilities” bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of
0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, up to a maximum of 20 spaces, as
defined in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
b. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic bicycle racks located near the building
entrance of each residential building and installed per the requirements
of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere
to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
c. One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained on the site within a central amenity area or along a
centralized pedestrian pathway. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”)
shall be provided in an area of high visibility and separated from
vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall
include: 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.
11. A sidewalk shall be constructed along La Puente Avenue and 50th Place
property lines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. 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
Page 226
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Page 227
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 228
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-50-21-6
5121 E. La Puente Ave Phoenix
APN#’s 301-41-338D & 301-41-338H
6.64 Acres
T1S R4E S8
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE ARIZONA AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF TRACT B, KOLL/ELLIOT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY, RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA RECORDED AS BOOK 244 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, MORE PARTICULARLY
DISCRIBES AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE MONUMENT LINE OF ELLIOT
ROAD AND 51 ST STREET, THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18
SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF 51ST STREET, 425.00
FEET(RECORD), 424.71 FEET(MEASURED) TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO
THE RIGHT, WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 45
SECONDS AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, THENCE ALONG SAID
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, 55.38 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE;
THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST(RECORED)
SOUTH 83 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST(MEASURED), 284.60 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF A PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED ACCESS
ROAD AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST(RECORED)
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST(MEASURED), A
DISTANCEOF 198.00 FEET,THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 33
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 144.64 FEET, THENCE NORTH 82 DEGREES 44
MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 288.64 FEET, THENCE NORTH 22
DEGREES 39 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 281.08 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 5 7 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST(RECORD)
NORTH 72 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST(MEASURED), A DISTANCE
OF 401.91 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF A PREVIOUSLY
DESCRIBED ACCESS ROAD EASEMENT;
THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 30 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 57 SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 236.10
FEET, AND A CHORD OF 125.39 FEET BEARING SOUTH O1 DEGREES 54
MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST,126.91 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE;
Page 229
THENCE SOUTH 17 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 2 7 SECONDS WEST, (RECORD)
SOUTH 17 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST(MEASURED) 30. 19
FEET(RECORD) 30.21 FEET(MEASURED) TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO
THE RIGHT, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 12
SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET,
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, 137.33 FEET TO THE END OF SAID
CURVE; THENCE NORTH 83 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST
(RECORD) NORTH 83 DEGREES 59MINUTES 47 SECONDS WEST(MEASURED), A
DISTANCE OF 37.23 FEET(RECORD) 37.36 FEET(MEASURED) TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 230
Page 231
Report
Approximately 275 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of 51st Street and Elliot
Road (Ordinance G-6923)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR (Intermediate
Commercial, Density Waiver, Height Waiver) to allow multifamily residential with a
height and density waiver.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR
Acreage: 3.26 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: Josh Wartlieb
Applicant: Larry Lazarus, Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C.
Representative: Larry Lazarus, Lazarus & Silvyn, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee heard this case on
Oct. 25, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of
11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 275 feet east of the northeast corner of 51st Street and Elliot Road.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 5121 E. La Puente Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 223
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-50-21-6) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL)
TO C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
DENSITY WAIVER, HEIGHT WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.26-acre site located approximately 275 feet
east of the northeast corner of 51st Street and Elliot Road in a portion of Section 8,
Township 1 South, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is
hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) to “C-2 DNS/WVR HGT/WVR”
(Intermediate Commercial, Density Waiver, Height Waiver).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 224
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 110 dwelling units and
utilize the R-5 zoning district development standards.
2. Additions to existing buildings or new buildings constructed on the site shall be
developed to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. 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.
b. All building elevations 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.
3. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper
large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, and five 5-gallon shrubs per tree. Existing trees may be used to
meet this requirement, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a
minimum, distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse, community room or gym.
c. One picnic area that includes one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a
picnic table.
d. Two benches or seating features.
5. A shade exhibit shall be submitted with the preliminary site plan submittal, with
shade calculations based on the summer solstice at 12:00pm (noon), as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Pedestrian walkways, including the sidewalk along La Puente Avenue and 50th
Place, shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using large canopy
Page 225
drought-tolerant shade trees at maturity and/or architectural shade, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
7. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department.
8. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all vehicular points of ingress
and/or egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the
public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. “Secure/Covered Facilities” bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of
0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, up to a maximum of 20 spaces, as
defined in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
b. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic bicycle racks located near the building
entrance of each residential building and installed per the requirements
of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere
to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
c. One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained on the site within a central amenity area or along a
centralized pedestrian pathway. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”)
shall be provided in an area of high visibility and separated from
vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall
include: 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.
11. A sidewalk shall be constructed along La Puente Avenue and 50th Place
property lines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. 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
Page 226
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Page 227
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 228
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-50-21-6
5121 E. La Puente Ave Phoenix
APN#’s 301-41-338D & 301-41-338H
6.64 Acres
T1S R4E S8
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE ARIZONA AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF TRACT B, KOLL/ELLIOT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY, RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA RECORDED AS BOOK 244 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, MORE PARTICULARLY
DISCRIBES AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE MONUMENT LINE OF ELLIOT
ROAD AND 51 ST STREET, THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18
SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF 51ST STREET, 425.00
FEET(RECORD), 424.71 FEET(MEASURED) TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO
THE RIGHT, WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 45
SECONDS AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, THENCE ALONG SAID
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, 55.38 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE;
THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST(RECORED)
SOUTH 83 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST(MEASURED), 284.60 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF A PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED ACCESS
ROAD AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST(RECORED)
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST(MEASURED), A
DISTANCEOF 198.00 FEET,THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 33
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 144.64 FEET, THENCE NORTH 82 DEGREES 44
MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 288.64 FEET, THENCE NORTH 22
DEGREES 39 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 281.08 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 5 7 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST(RECORD)
NORTH 72 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST(MEASURED), A DISTANCE
OF 401.91 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF A PREVIOUSLY
DESCRIBED ACCESS ROAD EASEMENT;
THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 30 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 57 SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 236.10
FEET, AND A CHORD OF 125.39 FEET BEARING SOUTH O1 DEGREES 54
MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST,126.91 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE;
Page 229
THENCE SOUTH 17 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 2 7 SECONDS WEST, (RECORD)
SOUTH 17 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST(MEASURED) 30. 19
FEET(RECORD) 30.21 FEET(MEASURED) TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO
THE RIGHT, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 12
SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET,
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, 137.33 FEET TO THE END OF SAID
CURVE; THENCE NORTH 83 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST
(RECORD) NORTH 83 DEGREES 59MINUTES 47 SECONDS WEST(MEASURED), A
DISTANCE OF 37.23 FEET(RECORD) 37.36 FEET(MEASURED) TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 230
Page 231
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-42-21-8 -
Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Ordinance G-
6922)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) to
allow detached multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 2.05 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: Kleck Rodney and Donna Tr., Deka Company
Applicant: Shelby Duplessis, The Empire Group of Companies
Representative: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct. 11, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation
and an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 232
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-42-21-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.05-acre site located at the southwest
corner of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue in a portion of Section 5, Township
1 South, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed
from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial
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 233
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development of the area is subject to the submittal of required master plans
and compliance with the following stipulations:
Each developer shall submit Master Development Plans for review and approval
by appropriate city departments prior to preliminary site plan submittal of such
developer's development unit. The plans to be submitted are as follows:
(a) General Development Plan that shall include:
(1) Boundaries and approximate acreage of the developer's
development unit.
(2) Proposed zoning and land use of the developer's development unit.
(3) The approximate location of arterial and collector streets which are
adjacent to or a part of the developer's development unit.
(4) The approximate location, if provided, of any applicable public uses
proposed, such as schools, parks, trails, drainage ways, or other
recreational facilities. Also shown shall be proposed private open
space reservations or trails adjacent to and/or within the developer’s
development unit.
(5) Development Phasing Schedule for the developer’s development
unit that includes the anticipated initiation of development for each
phase and the anticipated completion of development.
(6) Project data for the developer’s development unit for specific types
of uses to include: a schedule of intensity of uses for each phase
indicating the proposed land uses, the maximum number of dwelling
units, the approximate gross leasable area, the proposed height and
floor area ration (FAR) limits, and the projected school enrollment.
(b) Master Infrastructure Plans: Each developer shall submit for review by the
Water Services Director, master infrastructure plans for potable water,
wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities (if applicable) for the developer’s
development unit. Such plans shall meet the terms and conditions set forth
in the Water Services Department’s master water, wastewater, and
reclaimed water master plans for the area.
Page 234
(c) Master Street Circulation Plan: Each developer shall dedicate all
necessary rights-of-way and required easements for the developer’s
development unit (for streets, utilities, trails systems, and other open space
where required). Each applicable developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail
easement along the South Mountain Avenue alignment as approved by the
Parks and Recreation Department to provide connectivity through the site
to adjacent open space and trail connections. Other multi-use trail
easements shall be dedicated by the applicable developer in the vicinity of
the Olney Avenue alignment, and to generally criss-cross through the core
area to connect with planned or existing trails in the Laveen Trails Plan.
(d) Master Grading and Drainage Plan: Each developer shall submit a Master
Grading and Drainage Plan for the developer’s development units to be
approved by the City Engineer. The drainage plan shall include (but not be
limited to) the following:
(1) Proposed man-made drainage channels.
(2) Any proposed flood control facilities, such as storm water detention
damns.
(3) Discuss any drainage concerns with the project and proposed
methods of addressing these concerns, to include planning by the
Flood Control District.
(e) Master Pedestrian / Bike / Trails Circulation Plan: Each developer shall
submit a Master Pedestrian / Bike / Trails Circulation Plan for the
developer’s development unit to the Planning and Development
Department for review by the Parks and Recreation, Planning and
Development, and Street Transportation Departments and is to address
the following:
(1) Show all pedestrian walkways, equestrian trails, water features and
watercourses, and bikeways within and/or abutting the site.
(2) Coordinate the locations of trails to provide a trail network
throughout the development.
(3) Anticipated traffic impacts will be considered in reducing conflicts
between vehicle and pedestrian/biking/etc. Alternative consideration
for equestrian traffic may be considered.
(f) The Master Landscape and Conservation Plan: Each developer shall
submit a Master Landscape and Conservation Plan for the developer’s
development unit to the Planning and Development Department for review
by the Parks and Recreation, Planning and Development, and Street
Transportation Departments and is to address the following:
Page 235
(1) List of plants not allowed in the development due to their
incompatibility.
(2) Define areas to be reserved as open space.
(g) The Master Site and Architectural/Urban Design Plan: Each developer
shall submit a Master Site and Architectural/Urban Design Plan for the
developer’s development unit to the Planning and Development
Department for review by the Parks and Recreation, Planning and
Development, and Street Transportation Departments and is to develop a
character framework for linkage systems of streets, trails, and other
corridor through both residential and commercial parcels with landscape,
signage and construction materials.
(h) The Master Open Space Plan: Each developer shall submit a Master Open
Space Plan for the developer’s development unit to the Planning and
Development Department for review by the Parks and Recreation,
Planning and Development, and Street Transportation Departments and
shall address the relationship of the development to all open space.
2. There shall be a maximum of one vehicular access driveway on 59th Avenue
within the boundaries of the rezoning request.
3. The required landscape setback along 59th Avenue shall include large canopy
shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be
minimum four-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum three-
inch caliper. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover, shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Perimeter walls along public streets shall include material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element,
such as tile or stamped designs, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Bicycle parking shall be provided either as two secure spaces in lockers within
the surface parking area, or four bicycle parking spaces via inverted U-bicycle
racks, artistic style bicycle racks or “Outdoor/Covered Facilities” located near the
vehicular entryway into the development, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
Page 236
6. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad along
southbound 59th Avenue south of the roadway that is labeled on the site plan as
“secondary entry/exit.” The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to City of
Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet and shall be
spaced from the intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Trees shall be placed to provide 50% shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full
maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances, bus stop pad, and public sidewalks, using the most direct
route for pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Trees shall be placed to provide 75% shade coverage on all pedestrian paths
and sidewalks at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Shade structures may be used to meet the shade requirement in
places where trees are unable to be located.
11. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55 feet of right-of-way and construct the
west half of 59th Avenue to City of Phoenix CM Cross Section standards with a
14-foot-wide landscaped median island, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
12. The developer shall provide $48,000 in escrow for a future traffic signal for the
intersection of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
14. 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.
15. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
Page 237
16. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
17. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
Page 238
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 239
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-42-21-8
EMPIRE CARVER MOUNTAIN
EAST PARCEL DESCRIPTION
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,
RANGE 2 WEST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MARICOPA COUNTY ALUMINUM CAP MARKING THE WEST
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, FROM WHICH THE CITY OF PHOENIX
BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 5 BEARS SOUTH 00°18'32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,640.48 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°48'00" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 299.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 59TH AVENUE AS DEDICATED IN MAP OF
DEDICATION P.U.H.S.D. #210 – COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL AS RECORDED
IN BOOK 846 OF MAPS, PAGE 5, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE SOUTH 42°53'50" WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
A DISTANCE OF 112.42 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE OF
1,055.00 FOOT RADIUS, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND
ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°00'25", A DISTANCE OF
442.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 5;
THENCE NORTH 00°18'32" EAST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 457.88
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 56,640 SQUARE FEET OR 1.300 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Page 240
Page 241
Report
Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Ordinance G-
6922)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) to
allow detached multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 2.05 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: Kleck Rodney and Donna Tr., Deka Company
Applicant: Shelby Duplessis, The Empire Group of Companies
Representative: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct. 11, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation
and an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 232
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-42-21-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.05-acre site located at the southwest
corner of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue in a portion of Section 5, Township
1 South, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed
from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial
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 233
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development of the area is subject to the submittal of required master plans
and compliance with the following stipulations:
Each developer shall submit Master Development Plans for review and approval
by appropriate city departments prior to preliminary site plan submittal of such
developer's development unit. The plans to be submitted are as follows:
(a) General Development Plan that shall include:
(1) Boundaries and approximate acreage of the developer's
development unit.
(2) Proposed zoning and land use of the developer's development unit.
(3) The approximate location of arterial and collector streets which are
adjacent to or a part of the developer's development unit.
(4) The approximate location, if provided, of any applicable public uses
proposed, such as schools, parks, trails, drainage ways, or other
recreational facilities. Also shown shall be proposed private open
space reservations or trails adjacent to and/or within the developer’s
development unit.
(5) Development Phasing Schedule for the developer’s development
unit that includes the anticipated initiation of development for each
phase and the anticipated completion of development.
(6) Project data for the developer’s development unit for specific types
of uses to include: a schedule of intensity of uses for each phase
indicating the proposed land uses, the maximum number of dwelling
units, the approximate gross leasable area, the proposed height and
floor area ration (FAR) limits, and the projected school enrollment.
(b) Master Infrastructure Plans: Each developer shall submit for review by the
Water Services Director, master infrastructure plans for potable water,
wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities (if applicable) for the developer’s
development unit. Such plans shall meet the terms and conditions set forth
in the Water Services Department’s master water, wastewater, and
reclaimed water master plans for the area.
Page 234
(c) Master Street Circulation Plan: Each developer shall dedicate all
necessary rights-of-way and required easements for the developer’s
development unit (for streets, utilities, trails systems, and other open space
where required). Each applicable developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail
easement along the South Mountain Avenue alignment as approved by the
Parks and Recreation Department to provide connectivity through the site
to adjacent open space and trail connections. Other multi-use trail
easements shall be dedicated by the applicable developer in the vicinity of
the Olney Avenue alignment, and to generally criss-cross through the core
area to connect with planned or existing trails in the Laveen Trails Plan.
(d) Master Grading and Drainage Plan: Each developer shall submit a Master
Grading and Drainage Plan for the developer’s development units to be
approved by the City Engineer. The drainage plan shall include (but not be
limited to) the following:
(1) Proposed man-made drainage channels.
(2) Any proposed flood control facilities, such as storm water detention
damns.
(3) Discuss any drainage concerns with the project and proposed
methods of addressing these concerns, to include planning by the
Flood Control District.
(e) Master Pedestrian / Bike / Trails Circulation Plan: Each developer shall
submit a Master Pedestrian / Bike / Trails Circulation Plan for the
developer’s development unit to the Planning and Development
Department for review by the Parks and Recreation, Planning and
Development, and Street Transportation Departments and is to address
the following:
(1) Show all pedestrian walkways, equestrian trails, water features and
watercourses, and bikeways within and/or abutting the site.
(2) Coordinate the locations of trails to provide a trail network
throughout the development.
(3) Anticipated traffic impacts will be considered in reducing conflicts
between vehicle and pedestrian/biking/etc. Alternative consideration
for equestrian traffic may be considered.
(f) The Master Landscape and Conservation Plan: Each developer shall
submit a Master Landscape and Conservation Plan for the developer’s
development unit to the Planning and Development Department for review
by the Parks and Recreation, Planning and Development, and Street
Transportation Departments and is to address the following:
Page 235
(1) List of plants not allowed in the development due to their
incompatibility.
(2) Define areas to be reserved as open space.
(g) The Master Site and Architectural/Urban Design Plan: Each developer
shall submit a Master Site and Architectural/Urban Design Plan for the
developer’s development unit to the Planning and Development
Department for review by the Parks and Recreation, Planning and
Development, and Street Transportation Departments and is to develop a
character framework for linkage systems of streets, trails, and other
corridor through both residential and commercial parcels with landscape,
signage and construction materials.
(h) The Master Open Space Plan: Each developer shall submit a Master Open
Space Plan for the developer’s development unit to the Planning and
Development Department for review by the Parks and Recreation,
Planning and Development, and Street Transportation Departments and
shall address the relationship of the development to all open space.
2. There shall be a maximum of one vehicular access driveway on 59th Avenue
within the boundaries of the rezoning request.
3. The required landscape setback along 59th Avenue shall include large canopy
shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be
minimum four-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum three-
inch caliper. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover, shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Perimeter walls along public streets shall include material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element,
such as tile or stamped designs, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Bicycle parking shall be provided either as two secure spaces in lockers within
the surface parking area, or four bicycle parking spaces via inverted U-bicycle
racks, artistic style bicycle racks or “Outdoor/Covered Facilities” located near the
vehicular entryway into the development, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
Page 236
6. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad along
southbound 59th Avenue south of the roadway that is labeled on the site plan as
“secondary entry/exit.” The bus stop pad shall be constructed according to City of
Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet and shall be
spaced from the intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Trees shall be placed to provide 50% shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full
maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances, bus stop pad, and public sidewalks, using the most direct
route for pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Trees shall be placed to provide 75% shade coverage on all pedestrian paths
and sidewalks at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Shade structures may be used to meet the shade requirement in
places where trees are unable to be located.
11. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55 feet of right-of-way and construct the
west half of 59th Avenue to City of Phoenix CM Cross Section standards with a
14-foot-wide landscaped median island, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
12. The developer shall provide $48,000 in escrow for a future traffic signal for the
intersection of 59th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
14. 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.
15. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
Page 237
16. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
17. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
Page 238
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 239
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-42-21-8
EMPIRE CARVER MOUNTAIN
EAST PARCEL DESCRIPTION
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,
RANGE 2 WEST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MARICOPA COUNTY ALUMINUM CAP MARKING THE WEST
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, FROM WHICH THE CITY OF PHOENIX
BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 5 BEARS SOUTH 00°18'32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,640.48 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°48'00" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 299.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 59TH AVENUE AS DEDICATED IN MAP OF
DEDICATION P.U.H.S.D. #210 – COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL AS RECORDED
IN BOOK 846 OF MAPS, PAGE 5, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE SOUTH 42°53'50" WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
A DISTANCE OF 112.42 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE OF
1,055.00 FOOT RADIUS, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND
ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°00'25", A DISTANCE OF
442.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 5;
THENCE NORTH 00°18'32" EAST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 457.88
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 56,640 SQUARE FEET OR 1.300 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Page 240
Page 241
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-55-21-8 -
Approximately 200 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of 11th Street and
Washington Street (Ordinance G-6924)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-1 TOD-1 (Neighborhood Retail District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One) to WU Code T5:5 EG (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 District,
Transit Eastlake-Garfield Character Area) to allow a research and testing laboratory.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-1 TOD-1
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T5:5 EG
Acreage: 0.93
Proposed Use: Research and testing laboratory
Owner: Clide Calfa, QSS, LLC
Applicant: Kim Shaffer, Sky Analytical Laboratories, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Central City Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct. 11,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 13-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Central City Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 200 feet east of the northeast corner of 11th Street and Washington
Street.
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 1112 and 1122 E. Washington St.
Page 242
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 243
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-55-21-8) FROM C-1 TOD-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT ONE) TO WU CODE T5:5 EG (WALKABLE URBAN
CODE, TRANSECT 5:5 DISTRICT, TRANSIT EASTLAKE-
GARFIELD CHARACTER AREA).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.93-acre site located approximately 200 feet
east of the northeast corner of 11th Street and Washington Street in a portion of Section
9, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is
hereby changed from “C-1 TOD-1” (Neighborhood Retail District, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to “WU Code T5:5 EG” (Walkable Urban Code,
Transect 5:5 District, Transit Eastlake-Garfield Character Area).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
Page 244
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 site plan approval and permit issuance for any new building(s) or
structure(s) on the site, the new building or structure and adjacent landscaping
shall be developed in compliance with the Walkable Urban Code (Chapter 13
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance), as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
5. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
6. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 245
8. The developer shall install a minimum of one inverted-u bicycle rack (two
spaces) for guests, placed near building entrances to existing Building B as
depicted on the site plan dated August 1, 2021 and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Page 246
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 247
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-55-21-8:
LOTS 23, 24, and 25, BLOCK 2, PORTER AND BAXTER'S SUBDIVISION OF TRACT
"B" IN MURPHY'S ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
RECORDED IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS, PAGE 28.
EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 25 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE WEST 35 FEET OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 15
FEET OF THE WEST 20 FEET OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST 20 FEET TO THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 25
FEET OF SAID LOT 25; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 25
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 25 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT THE EAST 0.25 FEET OF LOT 23.
Page 248
Page 249
Report
Approximately 200 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of 11th Street and
Washington Street (Ordinance G-6924)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-1 TOD-1 (Neighborhood Retail District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One) to WU Code T5:5 EG (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 District,
Transit Eastlake-Garfield Character Area) to allow a research and testing laboratory.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-1 TOD-1
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T5:5 EG
Acreage: 0.93
Proposed Use: Research and testing laboratory
Owner: Clide Calfa, QSS, LLC
Applicant: Kim Shaffer, Sky Analytical Laboratories, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Graff, Quarles & Brady, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Central City Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct. 11,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 13-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Central City Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 200 feet east of the northeast corner of 11th Street and Washington
Street.
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 1112 and 1122 E. Washington St.
Page 242
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 243
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-55-21-8) FROM C-1 TOD-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT ONE) TO WU CODE T5:5 EG (WALKABLE URBAN
CODE, TRANSECT 5:5 DISTRICT, TRANSIT EASTLAKE-
GARFIELD CHARACTER AREA).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.93-acre site located approximately 200 feet
east of the northeast corner of 11th Street and Washington Street in a portion of Section
9, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is
hereby changed from “C-1 TOD-1” (Neighborhood Retail District, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to “WU Code T5:5 EG” (Walkable Urban Code,
Transect 5:5 District, Transit Eastlake-Garfield Character Area).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
Page 244
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 site plan approval and permit issuance for any new building(s) or
structure(s) on the site, the new building or structure and adjacent landscaping
shall be developed in compliance with the Walkable Urban Code (Chapter 13
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance), as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
5. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
6. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 245
8. The developer shall install a minimum of one inverted-u bicycle rack (two
spaces) for guests, placed near building entrances to existing Building B as
depicted on the site plan dated August 1, 2021 and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Page 246
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 247
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-55-21-8:
LOTS 23, 24, and 25, BLOCK 2, PORTER AND BAXTER'S SUBDIVISION OF TRACT
"B" IN MURPHY'S ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
RECORDED IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS, PAGE 28.
EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 25 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE WEST 35 FEET OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 15
FEET OF THE WEST 20 FEET OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST 20 FEET TO THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 25
FEET OF SAID LOT 25; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 25
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 25 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT THE EAST 0.25 FEET OF LOT 23.
Page 248
Page 249
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
PCD Major Amendment - Rezoning Application Z-138-E-83-5 (Aldea Centre PUD)
- Approximately 368 Feet South and 365 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of
99th Avenue and the Bethany Home Road Alignment
Request to approve Rezoning Application Z-138-E-83-5 and rezone the site from PUD
PCD (Planned Unit Development, Planned Community District) to PUD PCD for a
major amendment to the DC Ranch PCD to allow a major amendment to the Aldea
Centre PUD to allow recreational vehicles sales, service and showroom.
Summary
Current Zoning: PUD PCD
Proposed Zoning: PUD PCD
Acreage: 125.30
Proposed Use: Major Amendment to the DC Ranch PCD to allow a major amendment
to the Aldea Centre PUD to allow recreational vehicle sales, service and showroom.
Owner: John F. Long Family Revocable Living Trust
Applicant: David Richert, Richert and Associates
Representative: David Richert, Richert and Associates
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard the case on Aug. 11, 2021
for information only .
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard the case on Oct. 13,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 6-4.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 368 feet south and 365 feet west of the southwest corner of 99th
Avenue and the Bethany Home Road alignment.
Council District: 5
Parcel Addresses: 5627, 5628, 5700, 5750, 5800, and 5850 N. 101st Ave,; 9927,
Page 250
9928, 9975, 10,100, 10,200, and 10,250 W. Montebello Ave.; and 10,000 W. Missouri
Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 251
ATTACHMENT A – Aldea Centre PUD, DC Ranch Planned Community District
Z-138-E-83-5
Planning Commission Approved Stipulations from November 4, 2021:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Aldea Centre 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 September 2, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:
Major Amendment Z-183-E-83
Submitted: March 18, 2021
2nd Submittal: June 30, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 2, 2021
b. Page 35, Performance Standards for Recreational Vehicle and Towable
Trailer Sales, Standard No. 3: Update the minimum caliper size to 50%
2- inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper for the landscape setback.
c. Page 36, Performance Standards for Recreational Vehicle and Towable
Trailer Sales, add the following language as Standard No. 8: Where
pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement
treatments that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
d. Page 56, Approved Plant Material List: Remove “Date Palm” and
“Mediterranean Fan Palm” from the tree and accents categories.
2. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad along
southbound 99th Avenue south of Montebello Avenue. The bus stop pad shall
be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the
intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be
placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full
maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. 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
Page 252
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
4. A traffic impact study shall be reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation Department prior to preliminary site plan approval. The
applicant shall be responsible for any dedications and required improvements
as recommended by the approved study, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. A Master Street Plan showing all public arterial and collector streets shall be
submitted to the Street Transportation and Planning and Development
Departments for review and approval.
6. The developer shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to
Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of
Glendale Municipal Airport (GEU) to future owners or tenants of the property.
7. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
PCD Stipulations
9. The total number of residential units within the DC Ranch (East) PCD shall not
exceed 1,868 units.
10. The DC Ranch PCD master plans for the PCD shall be updated to reflect
approval of this amendment if applicable, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Major PCD Amendment Map (1 page)
Page 253
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-138-E-83-5
That part of the East half of Section 17, Township 2 North, Range 1 East of the Gila and
Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the South quarter corner of said Section 17;
Thence North 00 degrees 34 minutes 51 seconds West, along the North-South mid-
section line of said Section 17, a distance of 3297.00 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing North 00 degrees 34 minutes 51 seconds West 1109.70 feet to a
point on the Easterly line of the property described in Book 218 of Deeds, Page 291,
Records of Maricopa County, Arizona;
Thence North 34 degrees 02 minutes 17 seconds East along said Easterly line 158.95
feet;
Thence North 25 degrees 58 minutes 17 seconds East along said Easterly line 626.00
feet to the Northeast corner of said property;
Thence South 87 degrees 38 minutes 08 seconds West along the North line of the
above described property 370.31 feet to a point on the North-South mid-section line of
said Section 17;
Thence North 00 degrees 34 minutes 51 seconds West along said mid-section line
43.10 feet;
Thence North 87 degrees 23 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 582.33 feet;
Thence North 86 degrees 06 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 626.50 feet;
Thence North 86 degrees 15 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 616.50 feet;
Thence North 85 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 484.81 feet;
Thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 345.03 feet;
Thence North 88 degrees 34 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 394.51feet to a
point on the East line of said Northeast quarter of Section 17;
Thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds West along said East line a distance
of 2242.99 feet;
Thence South 88 degrees 44 minutes 55 seconds West, 195.26 feet to the beginning of
a tangent curve whose radius point bears North 01 degrees 15 minutes 05 seconds
West, 1000.00 feet;
Page 254
Thence Westerly along the arc of said tangent curve through a central angle of 23
degrees 41 minutes 27 seconds and an arc length of 413.48 feet;
Thence North 67 degrees 33 minutes 38 seconds West, 161.99 feet to the beginning of
a tangent curve whose radius point bears South 22 degrees 26 minutes 22 seconds
West 500.00 feet;
Thence Westerly along the arc of said tangent curve through a central angle of 36
degrees 11 minutes 22 seconds and an arc length of 315.81 feet;
Thence South 76 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 183.06 feet to a point on the
monument line of 101st Avenue;
Thence along said monument line the following three(3) courses and distances
North 17 degrees 37 minutes 49 seconds West 280.68 feet to the beginning of a curve
to the right, having a radius of 400.00 feet;
Thence along the arc of said curve to the right through a central angle of 17 degrees 20
minutes 37 seconds and an arc length of 121.08 feet;
Thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 12 seconds West 132.82 feet to a point on the
North boundary of “Pendergast Elementary School Unit 9”, a subdivision, recorded in
Book 545 of Maps, Page 35, Records of Maricopa County;
Thence along said North boundary South 88 degrees 39 minutes 29 seconds West
1340.88 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Page 255
Page 256
Report
- Approximately 368 Feet South and 365 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of
99th Avenue and the Bethany Home Road Alignment
Request to approve Rezoning Application Z-138-E-83-5 and rezone the site from PUD
PCD (Planned Unit Development, Planned Community District) to PUD PCD for a
major amendment to the DC Ranch PCD to allow a major amendment to the Aldea
Centre PUD to allow recreational vehicles sales, service and showroom.
Summary
Current Zoning: PUD PCD
Proposed Zoning: PUD PCD
Acreage: 125.30
Proposed Use: Major Amendment to the DC Ranch PCD to allow a major amendment
to the Aldea Centre PUD to allow recreational vehicle sales, service and showroom.
Owner: John F. Long Family Revocable Living Trust
Applicant: David Richert, Richert and Associates
Representative: David Richert, Richert and Associates
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard the case on Aug. 11, 2021
for information only .
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard the case on Oct. 13,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 6-4.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 368 feet south and 365 feet west of the southwest corner of 99th
Avenue and the Bethany Home Road alignment.
Council District: 5
Parcel Addresses: 5627, 5628, 5700, 5750, 5800, and 5850 N. 101st Ave,; 9927,
Page 250
9928, 9975, 10,100, 10,200, and 10,250 W. Montebello Ave.; and 10,000 W. Missouri
Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 251
ATTACHMENT A – Aldea Centre PUD, DC Ranch Planned Community District
Z-138-E-83-5
Planning Commission Approved Stipulations from November 4, 2021:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Aldea Centre 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 September 2, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:
Major Amendment Z-183-E-83
Submitted: March 18, 2021
2nd Submittal: June 30, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 2, 2021
b. Page 35, Performance Standards for Recreational Vehicle and Towable
Trailer Sales, Standard No. 3: Update the minimum caliper size to 50%
2- inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper for the landscape setback.
c. Page 36, Performance Standards for Recreational Vehicle and Towable
Trailer Sales, add the following language as Standard No. 8: Where
pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement
treatments that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
d. Page 56, Approved Plant Material List: Remove “Date Palm” and
“Mediterranean Fan Palm” from the tree and accents categories.
2. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad along
southbound 99th Avenue south of Montebello Avenue. The bus stop pad shall
be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the
intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be
placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full
maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. 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
Page 252
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
4. A traffic impact study shall be reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation Department prior to preliminary site plan approval. The
applicant shall be responsible for any dedications and required improvements
as recommended by the approved study, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. A Master Street Plan showing all public arterial and collector streets shall be
submitted to the Street Transportation and Planning and Development
Departments for review and approval.
6. The developer shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to
Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of
Glendale Municipal Airport (GEU) to future owners or tenants of the property.
7. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
PCD Stipulations
9. The total number of residential units within the DC Ranch (East) PCD shall not
exceed 1,868 units.
10. The DC Ranch PCD master plans for the PCD shall be updated to reflect
approval of this amendment if applicable, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Major PCD Amendment Map (1 page)
Page 253
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-138-E-83-5
That part of the East half of Section 17, Township 2 North, Range 1 East of the Gila and
Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the South quarter corner of said Section 17;
Thence North 00 degrees 34 minutes 51 seconds West, along the North-South mid-
section line of said Section 17, a distance of 3297.00 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing North 00 degrees 34 minutes 51 seconds West 1109.70 feet to a
point on the Easterly line of the property described in Book 218 of Deeds, Page 291,
Records of Maricopa County, Arizona;
Thence North 34 degrees 02 minutes 17 seconds East along said Easterly line 158.95
feet;
Thence North 25 degrees 58 minutes 17 seconds East along said Easterly line 626.00
feet to the Northeast corner of said property;
Thence South 87 degrees 38 minutes 08 seconds West along the North line of the
above described property 370.31 feet to a point on the North-South mid-section line of
said Section 17;
Thence North 00 degrees 34 minutes 51 seconds West along said mid-section line
43.10 feet;
Thence North 87 degrees 23 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 582.33 feet;
Thence North 86 degrees 06 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 626.50 feet;
Thence North 86 degrees 15 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 616.50 feet;
Thence North 85 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 484.81 feet;
Thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 345.03 feet;
Thence North 88 degrees 34 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 394.51feet to a
point on the East line of said Northeast quarter of Section 17;
Thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds West along said East line a distance
of 2242.99 feet;
Thence South 88 degrees 44 minutes 55 seconds West, 195.26 feet to the beginning of
a tangent curve whose radius point bears North 01 degrees 15 minutes 05 seconds
West, 1000.00 feet;
Page 254
Thence Westerly along the arc of said tangent curve through a central angle of 23
degrees 41 minutes 27 seconds and an arc length of 413.48 feet;
Thence North 67 degrees 33 minutes 38 seconds West, 161.99 feet to the beginning of
a tangent curve whose radius point bears South 22 degrees 26 minutes 22 seconds
West 500.00 feet;
Thence Westerly along the arc of said tangent curve through a central angle of 36
degrees 11 minutes 22 seconds and an arc length of 315.81 feet;
Thence South 76 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 183.06 feet to a point on the
monument line of 101st Avenue;
Thence along said monument line the following three(3) courses and distances
North 17 degrees 37 minutes 49 seconds West 280.68 feet to the beginning of a curve
to the right, having a radius of 400.00 feet;
Thence along the arc of said curve to the right through a central angle of 17 degrees 20
minutes 37 seconds and an arc length of 121.08 feet;
Thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 12 seconds West 132.82 feet to a point on the
North boundary of “Pendergast Elementary School Unit 9”, a subdivision, recorded in
Book 545 of Maps, Page 35, Records of Maricopa County;
Thence along said North boundary South 88 degrees 39 minutes 29 seconds West
1340.88 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Page 255
Page 256
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-EN-1-
20-4 - Approximately 960 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of the SR-51
Freeway and Thomas Road (Resolution 21979)
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 designation on
approximately 21.60 acres from Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and
Commercial to Public/Quasi-Public. This is a companion case to Z-25-20-4 and should
be heard first, followed by Z-25-20-4.
Summary
Application: GPA-EN-1-20-4
Current Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (19.07 acres) and
Commercial (2.53 acres)
Proposed Designation: Public/Quasi-Public
Acreage: 21.60 acres
Proposed Use: Phoenix Children's Hospital campus
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 1, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and
Thomas Road.
Council District: 4
Parcel Addresses: 2700 N. 18th Place; 1741, 1801, 1813, and 1829 E. Thomas Road;
Page 257
1725, 1785, and 1810 E. Windsor Ave.; 1821, 1827, and 1919 E. Cambridge Ave.;
1822, 1826, 1828, 1830, and 1832 E. Virginia Ave.; and 1706, 1724, and 1726 E. Yale
St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 258
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-EN-1-20-4, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan which was adopted by
Resolution No. 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-EN-1-20-4, 21.60 acres
located approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway
and Thomas Road is designated Public/Quasi-Public.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 259
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 260
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
October 27, 2021
Application: GPA-EN-1-20-4
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Applicant: Phoenix Children’s Hospital
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley
Location: Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner
of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road
Acreage: 21.60 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (19.07
acres) and Commercial (2.53 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public (21.60 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment for Public/Quasi-
Public on the Phoenix Children's Hospital campus
Encanto Village Planning Committee Date: November 1, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case (Z-25-20-4) proposes a Planned Unit
Development to expand and consolidate zoning across the Phoenix Children’s
Hospital Campus. Because the proposal exceeds 10 acres and is not entirely
consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations a General
Plan Amendment is required to amend the Land Use Map designation.
2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
compatible with the Land Use Map designation to the north and east and is
consistent with the existing and planned uses for the subject site.
Page 261
Staff Analysis
GPA-EN-1-20-4
3) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
appropriate at this location due to the proximity to an arterial street and State
Route 51.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the
SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road. The request would amend the General Plan Land
Use Map designation from Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and Commercial
to Public/Quasi-Public. The subject site surrounds and excludes a property owned by
the State of Arizona.
Rezoning case Z-25-20-4 is a companion case to this General Plan Amendment request
and seeks to consolidate multiple zoning entitlements under a Planned Unit
Development to allow for expansion and master planning of the Phoenix Children’s
Hospital campus. A portion of the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus currently has the
appropriate Public/Quasi-Public designation which has traditionally used for hospitals in
the City of Phoenix. This request would consolidate the full campus under the
Public/Quasi-Public designation.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
To the west of the subject site are two land uses General Plan Land Use Map Designations;
and designations described as follows. Along Source: Planning and Development
Department
Thomas Road and west of the subject site is
developed as commercial and designated
Commercial. The remainder of the properties are
a mix of single-family residential and multifamily
residential designated Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre.
To the south of the subject site are a mix of
single-family and multifamily properties
designated Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
acre.
To the north of the subject site but south of Thomas Road is the core of the Phoenix
Children’s Hospital Medical Campus which is designated Public/Quasi-Public.
To the north of the subject site and north of Thomas Road are a mix of commercial
properties designated Commercial. North of Thomas Road and adjacent to the Phoenix
Children’s Hospital Campus (a portion not included in this GPA) is the Arizona Heart
Hospital which is also designated Public/Quasi-Public.
Page 262
Staff Analysis
GPA-EN-1-20-4
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE
• JOB CREATION (EMPLOYERS); LAND USE AND DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Support General Plan Land Use Map and zoning changes that will facilitate
the location of employment generating uses in each of the designated
employment centers.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will support ongoing investment and
development of the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus which has been an
medical-oriented employment center since the late 1960s.
• JOB CREATION (EMPLOYERS); LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support necessary
changes to land use and zoning in and around bio-medical clusters.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will support the master planning efforts
of the Phoenix Children's Hospital to create a cohesive medical campus
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE
• LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will support ongoing investment and
development of the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus which is both a
destination and an employment center. This campus is well served by State
Route 51 and Thomas Road.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-EN-1-20-4. The approval of this request will support
continued development at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.
Writer
Nick Klimek
October 28, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Page 263
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-EN-1-20-4 ACRES: 21.60 +/-
VILLAGE: Encanto COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
APPLICANT: Phoenix Children's Hospital
EXISTING:
Residential 10 to15 du/ac ( 19.07 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 2.53 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
17TH PL
Proposed Change Area
Commercial WINDSOR AVE
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Public/Quasi-Public
YALE ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi Public ( 21.60 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
Proposed Change Area
17TH PL
Public/Quasi-Public WINDSOR AVE
YALE ST
Page 264
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-EN-1-20-4_BW ACRES: 21.60 +/-
VILLAGE: Encanto COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
APPLICANT: Phoenix Children's Hospital
EXISTING:
Residential 10 to15 du/ac ( 19.07 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 2.53 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
17TH PL
Proposed Change Area
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre WINDSOR AVE
Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
YALE ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi Public ( 21.60 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
Proposed Change Area
17TH PL
Public/Quasi-Public WINDSOR AVE
YALE ST
Page 265
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-EN-1-20
Date of VPC Meeting November 1, 2021
Request From Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (19.07
acres) and Commercial (2.53 acres)
Request To Public/Quasi-Public (21.60 acres)
Proposed Use Minor General Plan Amendment for Public/Quasi-
Public on the Phoenix Children's Hospital campus
Location Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner
of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road
VPC Recommendation Approve, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-0-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
No speaker cards were received on this item.
This agenda item was heard concurrently with Item No. 4 (Z-25-20-4 – Phoenix
Children’s Hospital PUD)
Chair Kleinman stated that GPA-EN-1-20-4 and Z-25-20-4 be presented
concurrently but that the two separate motions will be required with the General
Plan Amendment first.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, introduced the request for a minor amendment to the Phoenix
General Plan for the Phoenix Children’s Hospital campus. Much of the campus is
designated “Public/Quasi-Public” and this text amendment would change the
designation on an additional 21.60 acres from “Residential 10-15 dwelling units
per acre” and “Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public.” The request will advance
the General Plan Core Values of “Strengthening the Local Economy” through job
creation and by “Connecting People and Places” through an appropriate level of
intensity that respects local conditions. Staff is recommending approval with no
stipulations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 266
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
None.
[Note: the item was heard with its companion rezoning case, Z-25-20-4, to
provide greater context of the requests.]
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Mahrle asked how the process for a GPA differs from a typical rezoning case.
Klimek responded that there are more notification requirements, and that the
amendment is adopted by resolution rather than by ordinance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Mahrle moved to approve per the staff recommendation. Matthews seconded
the motion.
DISCUSSION
None.
VOTE
12-0-0; motion passed with Benjamin, Coates, George, Jewett, Mahrle, Matthews,
Procaccini, Rodriguez, Searles, Wagner, Vice Chair Bryck, and Chair Kleinman in
support; none in dissent; and none in abstention.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 267
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-EN-1-20-4 (Companion Case Z-25-20-4)
Location: Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the SR-51
Freeway and Thomas Road
From: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and Commercial
To: Public/Quasi Public
Acreage: 21.60
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment for Public/Quasi-Public on the Phoenix
Children's Hospital campus.
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 11/1/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve GPA-EN-1-20-4, per the
Encanto Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case (Z-25-20-4) proposes a Planned Unit Development to
expand and consolidate zoning across the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus.
Because the proposal exceeds 10 acres and is not entirely consistent with the existing
General Plan Land Use Map designations a General Plan Amendment is required to
amend the Land Use Map designation.
2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
compatible with the Land Use Map designation to the north and east and is consistent
with the existing and planned uses for the subject site.
Page 268
3. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
appropriate at this location due to the proximity to an arterial street and State
Route 51.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 269
Report
20-4 - Approximately 960 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of the SR-51
Freeway and Thomas Road (Resolution 21979)
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 designation on
approximately 21.60 acres from Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and
Commercial to Public/Quasi-Public. This is a companion case to Z-25-20-4 and should
be heard first, followed by Z-25-20-4.
Summary
Application: GPA-EN-1-20-4
Current Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (19.07 acres) and
Commercial (2.53 acres)
Proposed Designation: Public/Quasi-Public
Acreage: 21.60 acres
Proposed Use: Phoenix Children's Hospital campus
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 1, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and
Thomas Road.
Council District: 4
Parcel Addresses: 2700 N. 18th Place; 1741, 1801, 1813, and 1829 E. Thomas Road;
Page 257
1725, 1785, and 1810 E. Windsor Ave.; 1821, 1827, and 1919 E. Cambridge Ave.;
1822, 1826, 1828, 1830, and 1832 E. Virginia Ave.; and 1706, 1724, and 1726 E. Yale
St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 258
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-EN-1-20-4, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan which was adopted by
Resolution No. 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-EN-1-20-4, 21.60 acres
located approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway
and Thomas Road is designated Public/Quasi-Public.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 259
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 260
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
October 27, 2021
Application: GPA-EN-1-20-4
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Applicant: Phoenix Children’s Hospital
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley
Location: Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner
of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road
Acreage: 21.60 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (19.07
acres) and Commercial (2.53 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public (21.60 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment for Public/Quasi-
Public on the Phoenix Children's Hospital campus
Encanto Village Planning Committee Date: November 1, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case (Z-25-20-4) proposes a Planned Unit
Development to expand and consolidate zoning across the Phoenix Children’s
Hospital Campus. Because the proposal exceeds 10 acres and is not entirely
consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations a General
Plan Amendment is required to amend the Land Use Map designation.
2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
compatible with the Land Use Map designation to the north and east and is
consistent with the existing and planned uses for the subject site.
Page 261
Staff Analysis
GPA-EN-1-20-4
3) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
appropriate at this location due to the proximity to an arterial street and State
Route 51.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the
SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road. The request would amend the General Plan Land
Use Map designation from Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and Commercial
to Public/Quasi-Public. The subject site surrounds and excludes a property owned by
the State of Arizona.
Rezoning case Z-25-20-4 is a companion case to this General Plan Amendment request
and seeks to consolidate multiple zoning entitlements under a Planned Unit
Development to allow for expansion and master planning of the Phoenix Children’s
Hospital campus. A portion of the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus currently has the
appropriate Public/Quasi-Public designation which has traditionally used for hospitals in
the City of Phoenix. This request would consolidate the full campus under the
Public/Quasi-Public designation.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
To the west of the subject site are two land uses General Plan Land Use Map Designations;
and designations described as follows. Along Source: Planning and Development
Department
Thomas Road and west of the subject site is
developed as commercial and designated
Commercial. The remainder of the properties are
a mix of single-family residential and multifamily
residential designated Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre.
To the south of the subject site are a mix of
single-family and multifamily properties
designated Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
acre.
To the north of the subject site but south of Thomas Road is the core of the Phoenix
Children’s Hospital Medical Campus which is designated Public/Quasi-Public.
To the north of the subject site and north of Thomas Road are a mix of commercial
properties designated Commercial. North of Thomas Road and adjacent to the Phoenix
Children’s Hospital Campus (a portion not included in this GPA) is the Arizona Heart
Hospital which is also designated Public/Quasi-Public.
Page 262
Staff Analysis
GPA-EN-1-20-4
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE
• JOB CREATION (EMPLOYERS); LAND USE AND DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Support General Plan Land Use Map and zoning changes that will facilitate
the location of employment generating uses in each of the designated
employment centers.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will support ongoing investment and
development of the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus which has been an
medical-oriented employment center since the late 1960s.
• JOB CREATION (EMPLOYERS); LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support necessary
changes to land use and zoning in and around bio-medical clusters.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will support the master planning efforts
of the Phoenix Children's Hospital to create a cohesive medical campus
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE
• LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will support ongoing investment and
development of the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus which is both a
destination and an employment center. This campus is well served by State
Route 51 and Thomas Road.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-EN-1-20-4. The approval of this request will support
continued development at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.
Writer
Nick Klimek
October 28, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Page 263
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-EN-1-20-4 ACRES: 21.60 +/-
VILLAGE: Encanto COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
APPLICANT: Phoenix Children's Hospital
EXISTING:
Residential 10 to15 du/ac ( 19.07 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 2.53 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
17TH PL
Proposed Change Area
Commercial WINDSOR AVE
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Public/Quasi-Public
YALE ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi Public ( 21.60 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
Proposed Change Area
17TH PL
Public/Quasi-Public WINDSOR AVE
YALE ST
Page 264
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-EN-1-20-4_BW ACRES: 21.60 +/-
VILLAGE: Encanto COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
APPLICANT: Phoenix Children's Hospital
EXISTING:
Residential 10 to15 du/ac ( 19.07 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 2.53 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
17TH PL
Proposed Change Area
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre WINDSOR AVE
Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
YALE ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi Public ( 21.60 +/- Acres)
THOMAS RD
Proposed Change Area
17TH PL
Public/Quasi-Public WINDSOR AVE
YALE ST
Page 265
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-EN-1-20
Date of VPC Meeting November 1, 2021
Request From Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (19.07
acres) and Commercial (2.53 acres)
Request To Public/Quasi-Public (21.60 acres)
Proposed Use Minor General Plan Amendment for Public/Quasi-
Public on the Phoenix Children's Hospital campus
Location Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner
of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road
VPC Recommendation Approve, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-0-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
No speaker cards were received on this item.
This agenda item was heard concurrently with Item No. 4 (Z-25-20-4 – Phoenix
Children’s Hospital PUD)
Chair Kleinman stated that GPA-EN-1-20-4 and Z-25-20-4 be presented
concurrently but that the two separate motions will be required with the General
Plan Amendment first.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, introduced the request for a minor amendment to the Phoenix
General Plan for the Phoenix Children’s Hospital campus. Much of the campus is
designated “Public/Quasi-Public” and this text amendment would change the
designation on an additional 21.60 acres from “Residential 10-15 dwelling units
per acre” and “Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public.” The request will advance
the General Plan Core Values of “Strengthening the Local Economy” through job
creation and by “Connecting People and Places” through an appropriate level of
intensity that respects local conditions. Staff is recommending approval with no
stipulations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 266
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
None.
[Note: the item was heard with its companion rezoning case, Z-25-20-4, to
provide greater context of the requests.]
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Mahrle asked how the process for a GPA differs from a typical rezoning case.
Klimek responded that there are more notification requirements, and that the
amendment is adopted by resolution rather than by ordinance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Mahrle moved to approve per the staff recommendation. Matthews seconded
the motion.
DISCUSSION
None.
VOTE
12-0-0; motion passed with Benjamin, Coates, George, Jewett, Mahrle, Matthews,
Procaccini, Rodriguez, Searles, Wagner, Vice Chair Bryck, and Chair Kleinman in
support; none in dissent; and none in abstention.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 267
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-EN-1-20-4 (Companion Case Z-25-20-4)
Location: Approximately 960 feet west of the southwest corner of the SR-51
Freeway and Thomas Road
From: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and Commercial
To: Public/Quasi Public
Acreage: 21.60
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment for Public/Quasi-Public on the Phoenix
Children's Hospital campus.
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 11/1/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve GPA-EN-1-20-4, per the
Encanto Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case (Z-25-20-4) proposes a Planned Unit Development to
expand and consolidate zoning across the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus.
Because the proposal exceeds 10 acres and is not entirely consistent with the existing
General Plan Land Use Map designations a General Plan Amendment is required to
amend the Land Use Map designation.
2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
compatible with the Land Use Map designation to the north and east and is consistent
with the existing and planned uses for the subject site.
Page 268
3. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Public/Quasi-Public is
appropriate at this location due to the proximity to an arterial street and State
Route 51.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 269
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-25-20-4
(Phoenix Children's Hospital PUD) - Southwest Corner of the SR-51 Freeway and
Thomas Road (Ordinance G-6928)
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-25-20-4 and rezone the site from R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential
Infill District), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill District), C-O
(Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District), C-O/G-O (Commercial Office -
Restricted Commercial District / General Office), C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial
District, Special Permit), C-2 H-R (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise
District), C-2 H-R (Approved C-2 HR SP) (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise
District, Approved Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise District, Special
Permit), C-2 H-R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise District, Special
Permit), C-2 HGT/WVR (Intermediate Commercial District, Height Waiver), and P-1
(Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development
District) for the Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD to allow a medical campus. This is a
companion case and should be heard following GPA-EN-1-20-4.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-3 RI (3.46 acres), R-5 RI (1.25 acres), C-O (1.20 acres), C-O/G-O
(1.30 acres), C-2 SP (2.85 acres), C-2 H-R (21.71 acres), C-2 H-R (Approved C-2 H-R
SP) (1.00 acre), C-2 H-R SP (0.31-acres), C-2 HGT/WVR (7.70 acres), and P-1 (1.87
acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 42.65 acres
Proposed Use: Medical Campus
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 13, 2021
Page 270
for information only.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 1, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulations, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: Parcel Addresses: 2700 N. 18th Place; 1741, 1801, 1813, 1829, and
1919 E. Thomas Road; 1725, 1785, and 1810 E. Windsor Ave.; 1821, 1827, 1919,
1920, and 1980 E. Cambridge Ave.; 1822, 1826, 1828, 1830, and 1832 E. Virginia
Ave.; and 1706, 1724, and 1726 E. Yale St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 271
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
(Z-25-20-4) FROM R-3 RI (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL INFILL DISTRICT), R-5 RI
(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL INFILL
DISTRICT), C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT), C-O/G-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE –
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT / GENERAL OFFICE), C-
2 SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SPECIAL
PERMIT), C-2 H-R (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
HIGH-RISE DISTRICT), C-2 H-R (APPROVED C-2 H-R SP)
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, HIGH-RISE
DISTRICT, APPROVED INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, HIGH-RISE DISTRICT, SPECIAL PERMIT), C-2 H-R
SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, HIGH-RISE
DISTRICT, SPECIAL PERMIT), C-2 HGT/WVR (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, HEIGHT WAIVER), AND P-1
(PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE PARKING, LIMITED DISTRICT) TO
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 42.65-acre site located at the southwest
corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road, in a portion of Section 34, Township 2
North, and Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby
changed from 3.46-acres of “R-3 RI” (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District), 1.25-acres of “R-5 RI” (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill District),
Page 272
1.20-acres of “C-O” (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District), 1.30-acres of
“C-O/G-O” (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District / General Office), 2.85-
acres of “C-2 SP” (Intermediate Commercial District, Special Permit), 7.70-acres of “C-2
HGT/WVR” (Intermediate Commercial District, Height Waiver), 21.71-acres of “C-2 H-R”
(Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density
District), 0.31-acres of “C-2 H-R SP” (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R
District—High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit), 1.00 acre of “C-2 H-R
(Approved C-2 H-R SP)” (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R District—
High-Rise and High Density District, Approved Intermediate Commercial District, High-
Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit), and 1.87-acres
“P-1” (Parking District) to 42.65-acres of “PUD” (Planned Unit Development 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. An updated Development Narrative for Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of
this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped October 13, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Page 5: Table of Contents: Change the font color to black.
b. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks: Add the following text “In the case of inconsistencies, the larger
setback provision shall apply.”
Page 273
c. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks, Exhibit 6 Landscape 6 Inset: Modify the legend in the replace
"Landscape Setbacks Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with
"Landscape Setbacks not adjacent to a public street".
d. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, d. Parking Lot Areas and
Structured Parking: Add a row titled “Surface Parking Shade” with the
following standard “All new surface parking areas after the adoption of the
PUD will be shaded to 25% by vegetative shade.”
e. Page 41: Design Guidelines, h. Fences and Walls: Delete No. 1 “Shall
comply with the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 703” and
renumber the subsequent guidelines.
f. Page 54: Exhibit 6: Modify the legend in the replace "Landscape Setbacks
Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape Setbacks not
adjacent to a public street".
2. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east
of the 18th Street Alignment. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be
constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum
depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection of
Thomas Road and the 18th Street alignment according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade
coverage to the bus stop pad at full maturity.
3. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east
of Children's Way. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be
constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum
depth of 12 feet. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to
the bus stop pad at full maturity.
4. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City.
5. 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.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
Page 274
7. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
8. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
Page 275
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (4 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 276
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-25-20-4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOTS A, B, C, D, E, F AND G
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, FROM
WHICH THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2636.25 FEET;
THENCE UPON AND WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 34,SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 143.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 540.05 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 41
MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS
BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.85 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 20TH STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
255.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89
DEGREES 22 MINUTES 08 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.72 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, UPON AND
WITH SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 53
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 727.79 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 12
MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 179.87 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
184.74 FEET;
Page 277
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
180.47 FEET TO THE AFORESAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE
AVENUE;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOTS A, B, C, D, E, F AND G
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, FROM
WHICH THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2636.25 FEET;
THENCE UPON AND WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 34, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 143.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 540.05 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 41
MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS
BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.85 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 20TH STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
255.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89
DEGREES 22 MINUTES 08 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.72 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, UPON AND
WITH SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 53
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 727.79 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 12
MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 179.87 FEET;
Page 278
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
184.74 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
180.47 FEET TO THE AFORESAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE
AVENUE;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR COMBINED LOTS K, L , M, N, O, P AND Q
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, FROM
WHICH THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2636.25 FEET;
THENCE UPON AND WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 34, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 988.85 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE
AND 20TH STREET;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 37.46 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 15
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF THE AFORESAID 20TH STREET AND BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE UPON AND WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 255.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89
DEGREES 23 MINUTES 25 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.72 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF VIRGINIA AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, UPON AND WITH SAID
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 09 SECONDS
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 396.65 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
5.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
155.68 FEET;
Page 279
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 52 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
5.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
485.35 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 00
DEGREES 18 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 279.25 FEET TO THE
SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE;
Page 280
Page 281
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-25-20-4
(Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Encanto Village Planning Committee November 1, 2021
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 4, 2021
Request From: R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District,
Residential Infill District) (3.46 acres), R-5 RI
(Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District) (1.25 acres), C-O (Commercial Office -
Restricted Commercial District) (1.20 acres), C-
O/G-O (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial District / General Office) (1.30
acres), C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial
District, Special Permit) (2.85 acres), C-2 HGT /
WVR (Intermediate Commercial District, Height
Waiver) (7.70 acres), C-2 H-R (Intermediate
Commercial, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise
and High Density District) (21.71 acres), C-2 H-
R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-
Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density
District, Special Permit) (0.31 acres), C-2 H-R
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-
R District—High-Rise and High Density District)
(1.00 acres) (Approved C-2 H-R SP
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-
R District—High-Rise and High Density District,
Special Permit (1.00 acres), and P-1 (Parking)
(1.87 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (42.65 acres)
Proposed Use: PUD to allow for a medical campus
Location: Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and
Thomas Road
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
Page 282
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
General Plan Conformity
Current Designation: Public/Quasi Public
(21.59 acres), Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre (19.07 acres), and
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial (2.53 acres)
Proposed (GPA-EN-1-20-4 for 21.06
acres):
Varies, 42 to 54-foot
Thomas Road Arterial
south half street
50-foot full street
Windsor Avenue Local Street
25-foot south half street
50-foot full street
Cambridge Varies, 25 to 32-feet
Local Street
Avenue north half street
Street Map
25-foot south half street
Classification
Varies, 25 to 30 foot-
Virginia Avenue Local Street
north half street
Yale Street Local Street 25-foot north half street
17th Place Local Street 10-foot east half street
Varies, 0 to 30-foot west
20th Street Local Street
half street
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; JOB CREATION
(EMPLOYERS); LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support General Plan Land Use Map and
zoning changes that will facilitate the location of employment generating uses in
each of the designated employment centers.
The PUD will support and facilitate ongoing investment and development of the Phoenix
Children’s Hospital Campus, which serves as one of the area’s largest employers. By
consolidating multiple zoning districts into a single PUD, the process for master
planning and expanding will be streamlined. While the subject site is not located in a
designated employment center, the Phoenix Children’s Hospital contains a cluster of
complementary uses and employers with immediate access to a freeway and an arterial
street.
Page 283
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: New development should minimize surface parking areas
and provide an abundance of shade through either trees or structures on any
planned parking areas.
The Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus includes a significant amount of structured
parking and the vision provided in the PUD is for a compact and complete medical
campus, that does not rely significantly on surface parking. The PUD includes
provisions that all new surface parking lots will be shaded to 25 percent by vegetative
shade and that 50 percent of the spaces will have structural shade.
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 includes provisions to create pedestrian friendly streetscape environments
with shaded and detached sidewalks in new developments with a requirement for 75
percent shade. Additionally, the PUD includes enhanced tree planting standards for
open space areas and along private pedestrian walkways.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Piestewa Peak Parkway Specific Plan: See Background Item No. 11.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 12.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 13.
Zero Waste Phoenix: See Background Item No. 14.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 42.65 acres located at the southwest corner of the State
Route 51 Freeway and Thomas Road from R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District,
Residential Infill District) (3.46 acres), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District,
Residential Infill District) (1.25 acres), C-O (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial District) (1.20 acres), C-O/G-O (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial District / General Office) (1.30 acres), C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial District, Special Permit) (2.85 acres), C-2 HGT / WVR (Intermediate
Commercial District, Height Waiver) (7.70 acres), C-2 H-R (Intermediate
Commercial, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density District) (21.71
acres), C-2 H-R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R District—
High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit) (0.31 acres), C-2 H-R
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High
Density District) (Approved C-2 H-R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-
Page 284
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit (1.00 acres),
and P-1 (Parking) (1.87 acres) to allow for the Phoenix Children’s Hospital medical
campus. The subject site is located in an area generally bounded by Thomas Road
on the north, Yale Street on the south, 17th Street on the west, and the State Route
51 on the east.
2. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is a mixture of
several designations including Public/Quasi Public, Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre, and Commercial. A companion General Plan Amendment case,
GPA-EN-1-20-4, has been filed to update the General Plan Land Use Map
designation to consolidate the entire campus to Public/Quasi-Public.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
3. The subject site was first Historic Advertisement, Source: PUD Narrative.
developed in 1961 as the
Doctors Hospital and has since
operated as Humana Hospital,
the Phoenix Regional Medical
Office, and then from 2000 as
Phoenix Children’s Hospital.
The subject site operates as a
medical campus as the
principal use and with
accessory uses typical of a
major hospital campus, such as
offices. The existing campus
includes a mix of building heights ranging from one and two stories up to the tower
at the center of the campus which reaches a height of 192 feet.
West, south of Thomas Road and north of Cambridge Avenue:
Immediately adjacent to the subject site at the above location is primarily
multifamily and office uses zoned for R-3 RI and R-5 RI. The R-5 RI site located
along Thomas Road immediately west of the subject site is built to two-stories tall
but is zoned to allow a maximum height of six-stories and 65 feet. The remainder of
properties adjacent to the subject site are zoned R-3 RI which limits development to
two-stories or 30 feet with a maximum height of four-stories and 48 feet subject to
setback requirements.
Non-Contiguous site, south of Cambridge Avenue and north of Yale Street:
The non-contiguous parcel located in the most southwesterly portion of the subject
site is adjacent to a mix of single-family and multifamily dwellings ranging in height
from one to two stories but zoned R-3 RI which limits development to two-stories or
30 feet with a maximum height of four-stories and 48 feet subject to setback
requirements.
Page 285
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
South of Cambridge Avenue and north of Virginia Avenue:
To the south and west of this portion of the site are a mix of single-family and
multifamily dwellings ranging in height from one to two stories but zoned R-3 RI
which limits development to two-stories or 30 feet with a maximum height of four-
stories and 48 feet subject to setback requirements. To the east of this site is a
four-level parking structure and conference center zoned C-2 HGT / WVR and built
at an approximate height of 44 feet.
East, north of Cambridge Avenue:
Located immediately east of the subject site but north of Cambridge Avenue is 20th
Street. Beyond 20th Street is the State Route 51 which is elevated at this location.
In total, the right-of-way measures approximately 440 feet in width before the
nearest private property.
North of Thomas Road:
Located north, across Thomas Road from the subject site are a mix of uses
including surface parking, offices, multifamily residences, commercial, and
healthcare. From the west near 17th Place, most of the parcels are developed in a
single-story form which increases to three and four stories in height approaching
State Route 51. This mix of land uses is achieved through a mix of zoning including
R-5, C-1, C-2 HGT/WVR, and C-2 HGT/WVR SP.
Interior to Campus: There are two parcels located within the perimeter boundary of
the subject site but not included in the rezoning case.
Located at the northeast corner fo Cambridge Avenue and 18th Place is a City of
Phoenix Fire Station. This site is one-story and zoned R-3 which allows a height of
two-stories or 30 feet with a maximum height of four-stories and 48 feet subject to
setback requirements.
Located north of Windsor Avenue near the western edge of the rezoning boundary
is a parcel owned and operated by the State of Arizona which is built to one-story in
height but zoned R-5 RI which allows a maximum height of six-stories and 65 feet.
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal utilizes the PUD zoning district which 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
proposes standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of the specific
site. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions are applied.
Page 286
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
The proposal is to consolidate the 10 zoning districts that currently govern
development on the campus into a comprehensive set of regulations, requirements,
and design standards contained in the PUD Development Narrative, herein referred
to as the “development narrative.”
5. Site Plan
The development narrative contains a series of site plans depicting the overall flow
of the existing campus and their vision for how future development on the site may
occur. Elements of this conceptual plan are incorporated into the body of the
narrative to regulate certain elements of the campus, including building heights in
addition to building and landscape setbacks.
Exhibit 4: Land Use Exhibit, Source: PUD Narrative.
6. Land Use
The development narrative is written to permit a mix of uses that will complement
the overall mission of Phoenix Children’s Hospital through operational and
locational synergies.
Permitted uses: Administrative offices; behavioral health including both inpatient
and outpatient; birthing center; blood donation; central service facilities; medical,
Page 287
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
dental, and clinical offices; conference/training facilities; health and support
services; hospice care; hospital; hospital service organizations; medical technology
research and development; nursing or medical training facilities; office; parking
structures and surface parking; pharmacies; rehabilitation services; research
laboratories; respite care; and women and children center.
Permitted accessory uses: Ancillary uses, temporary lodging, child day care; and
helistop (existing and subject to current stipulations).
Permitted temporary uses: Temporary parking lots.
7. Development Standards
The development narrative includes development standards such as height,
setbacks, lot coverage, and open space requirements in addition to landscape
planting standards, parking requirements, and others; this summary focuses on key
elements of the development standards section. The narrative and its development
standards are written to allow for vertical and horizontal expansion of the health
campus while respecting the interface with the nearby neighborhoods, primarily
through where the greatest height is permitted and by prescribing perimeter
setbacks.
Height: Exhibit 7: Building Heights, Source: PUD Narrative.
The development narrative
consolidates existing height
permissions from previous zoning
cases with few minor exceptions.
The maximum height permitted by
the narrative is 247 feet which is
the existing height of the hospital
tower at the center of the campus.
Additional height is focused along
Thomas Road and along State
Route 51, where the campus can
achieve the greatest visibility and
least impact to nearby residential
neighborhoods.
As depicted in Exhibit 7 to the right, the narrative restricts height to 30 feet in the
most southwesterly portion of the site, to 56 feet south of Cambridge Avenue and
north of Virginia Avenue, to 56 feet adjacent to the west zoning boundary with the
exception of the most northwesterly portion of the site adjacent to Thomas Road
which is restricted to maximum height of 96 feet.
Page 288
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Setbacks: The development narrative prescribes a height-based setback regime for
building and landscape setbacks for when sites are adjacent to public streets,
residential uses, and non-residential uses.
Building and Landscape Setbacks (Adjacent to Public Streets):
Building Setback (Min.) Building Setback (Min.) Landscape Setback (Min.)
2 stories or less Greater than 2 stories N/A
Thomas Road 25' 25' 25'
20th Street 15' 15' 15'
Cambridge Avenue
17th Place
15'
18th Place 15' 30’
Virginia Street
Yale Street
Perimeter Building and Landscape Setbacks (Adjacent to Residential Uses):
• Building Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30 feet,
the narrative requires a minimum building setback of 10 feet. When a
structure is greater than 2 stories or 30 feet, the narrative requires a
minimum building setback of 20 feet.
• Landscape Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30
feet, the narrative requires a minimum landscape setback of 5 feet. When a
structure is greater than 2 stories or 30 feet, the narrative requires a
minimum landscape setback of 20 feet.
Perimeter Building and Landscape Setbacks (Adjacent to Non-Residential Uses):
• Building Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30 feet,
the narrative requires a minimum building setback of 5 feet. The
undermentioned landscape setback requirement for a 20 foot minimum
landscape setback for buildings greater than 2 stories or 30 feet would, by
default, create a 20 foot minimum building setback.
• Landscape Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30
feet, the narrative requires a minimum landscape setback of 5 feet. When a
structure is greater than 2 stories or 30 feet, the narrative requires a
minimum landscape setback of 20 feet. (Page 15).
Campus Development Standards:
While much of the campus is existing, the development narrative prescribes
additional requirements for all new development and, in some cases, for the
campus in aggregate. The below section is divided into “new development” and
“aggregate campus” standards.
Page 289
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
New Development:
• Shaded and detached public sidewalks: With development or
redevelopment, sidewalks will be detached from the curb by a minimum
landscape area of 5 feet in width and will be shaded to 75 percent.
• Shaded private pedestrian pathways: All new pedestrian pathways will be
shaded to 50 percent.
• Shaded surface parking: All new surface parking lots will be landscaped and
shaded to 25 percent by vegetative shade and 50 percent of required
parking spaces will be shaded via architectural shade, as addressed in
Stipulation No. 1.d.
• Bicycle parking: All new buildings will include one new bicycle rack.
Aggregate Campus:
• Surface parking lots: A minimum 10 percent area of all surface parking lots –
new and existing – will be landscape, as addressed in Stipulation No. 1d.
• Open space: A minimum 5 percent of the gross area will be open space and
with individual spaces programmed for active uses such as play areas,
outdoor dining, and patios and passive spaces to provide an aesthetically
pleasing and calming element to the campus through turf and landscaping.
• Pedestrian pathways: The narrative preserves the requirement that a
pedestrian circulation plan be updated with each new development on the
campus. This plan must depict connections to nearby buildings, parking
structures and lots, and public sidewalks. In addition to the physical
connections, the plan must also depict public street crossings, shaded
walkways, and adjacent amenity programming.
8. Design Guidelines
The development narrative contains many design guidelines that add specificity to
the aesthetic and operational characteristics that will be implemented through the
requirements of the PUD. This section prescribes design requirements pertaining to
sustainable design, architectural design, open space design, and pedestrian
connectivity but this summary focuses only on key elements.
Design continuity:
The design guidelines articulate a theme for the hospital campus and specific
strategies for how the theme will be implemented across the site. This theme
includes a landscape palette, a color palette, and an approach to open space and
architectural design that is both calming and playful.
All buildings will include four-sided architecture with multiple colors, materials, and
architectural features including offsets and recesses. All new parking structures will
include multiple colors and architectural features with special emphasis on parking
structures oriented to Thomas Road or Children’s Way. The color palette will be
carried forward in landscape art, building accents, and in landscape programming.
Page 290
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
The campus will be connected by pedestrian pathways that are shaded with
adjacent spaces intentionally programmed to provide diverse experiences ranging
from playful to meditative.
9. Signage
The development narrative utilizes the existing Comprehensive Sign Plan and the
10. Sustainability
The development narrative proposes a series of sustainability features such as
green building systems, water efficient landscaping, interior water use reductions,
light color roofs, and waste diversion during construction.
11. Technical Corrections Stipulated
Staff is recommending Stipulation Nos. 1.a – 1.f to make minor technical
corrections to the development narrative. These technical corrections are minor in
their scope, correct formatting, eliminate discrepancies and unnecessary
provisions, and/or modify content for clarity. Below is a list of this technical
corrections.
• Stipulation No. 1.a: Corrects the font color on the table of contents page.
• Stipulation No. 1.b: Adds language to clarify that if any discrepancies exist
between the development narrative text and the associated exhibit, the more
stringent provision shall apply. This pertains to perimeter landscape
setbacks.
• Stipulation No. 1.c and f: Corrects language included in the legends for two
instances of the same map exhibit to more clearly describe the subject of the
map element, “landscape Setbacks not adjacent to a public street.”
• Stipulation No. 1.d: Adds language to the more clearly indicate the intent of
the development narrative to require new surface parking lots be shaded to
25 percent by vegetative shade.
• Stipulation No. 1.e: Removes a development standard related to screen
walls from the design guidelines section of the development narrative which
is both redundant to the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
STUDIES AND POLICIES
12. Piestewa Peak Parkway Specific Plan
The plan corridor is approximately one-half mile in width, just over five miles in
length, and includes the Piestewa Peak Freeway from Interstate 10 north to
Glendale Avenue. The Plan does not contain specific restrictions on land use that
differ from existing regulations. As such, this plan is deemed to be non-regulatory
but contains statements of goals, standards and policies. The medical campus was
present during the plan development in 1990 and has grown significantly since that
time.
Page 291
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
The Piestewa Peak Parkway Specific Plan contains two goals relevant to the
proposed PUD which is compatible and in alignment with the goals of the plan.
• Goal 3: “Protect and maintain viable neighborhoods, housing and other
uses.” The proposed PUD integrates previously approved stipulations
focused on neighborhood compatibility such as operational constraints on
the helipad and height restrictions.
• Goal 4: “Promote land use stability through strategic land use planning.” The
proposed PUD would consolidate several rezoning cases that were each
subject to different stipulations and development standards through piece-
meal zoning entitlements which made master planning difficult. By
consolidating the campus under a PUD, Phoenix Children’s Hospital can
begin master planning their campus and nearby stakeholders can more
easily understand the entitlements for this major campus.
13. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To support these principles related to
pedestrian connectivity and safety, the development narrative:
• Requires detached sidewalks shaded to 75 percent in all new development
to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian travel,
• Requires private pedestrian pathways shaded to 75 percent in all new
developments and connecting to public streets and on-site destinations,
• Requires bicycle parking in new developments, and
• Reduces vehicular trips through the locational synergies of a complete and
compact health and employment campus.
14. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. To support these principles related to pedestrian
connectivity and safety, the development narrative:
• Requires detached sidewalks shaded to 75 percent in all new development
to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian travel,
• Requires private pedestrian pathways shaded to 75 percent in all new
developments and connecting to public streets and on-site destinations, and
• Requires new surface parking lots be shaded to 25 percent by vegetative
means. This item is contained in the development narrative and reiterated in
Stipulation No. 1.d.
Page 292
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
15. Zero Waste Phoenix
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 narrative section on sustainability requires 50 percent
waste diversion during construction.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
16. At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any community
correspondence.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
16. The Street Transportation Department provided their standard comment requiring
all street improvements to comply with ADA standards and a stipulation requiring a
Traffic Impact Study/Statement. These items are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4
and 5.
17. The Public Transit Department provided three stipulations including that two bus
stop pads be retained and that a robust system of shaded and connected internal
pedestrian pathways be provided throughout the campus. These items are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
18. The Fire Department commented that they do not anticipate any problems serving
the site but noted that the site must comply with the Phoenix Fire Code. They
further commented that the water supply to the site (gpm and psi) has not been
determined and that additional water supply may be needed to meet the required
fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.
19. The Water Services Department commented that the site has existing water and
sewer mains that can potentially serve the development. The department added
their standard comment that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over
time due to a variety of factors. It is the City's intent to provide water and sewer
service. However, the requirements and assurances for water and sewer service
are determined during the site plan application review. For any given property,
water and sewer requirements may vary over time.
20. The Public Works Department determined that the subject site is not in a Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), but located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 2210 L of
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013.
Page 293
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
OTHER
21. The Aviation Department determined that the subject site is located within the
Traffic Pattern Airspace for Sky Harbor International Airport and that the site is
subject to maximum structure heights. Due to these proximities, the Aviation
Department requires: forms be recorded to disclose the presence and operational
characteristics of Sky Harbor International Airport to all future tenant and
purchasers, an avigation easement be granted to the City of Phoenix, and that the
applicant obtain a No Hazard Determination from the FAA for all development on
the site. These items are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6 through 8.
22. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities must
cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology
Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the
materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 9 through 11.
23. 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 request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Public/Quasi-Public, pending the Companion General Plan Amendment GPA-EN-1-
20.
2. The development narrative provides a unified regulatory framework for the entire
campus that addresses design, intensity, multi-modal connectivity, and compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
3. The development narrative provides enhanced design standards, landscape
standards, and streetscape standards that will promote high-quality development in
the expansion of this major healthcare campus
Stipulations
Page 294
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
1. An updated Development Narrative for Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD reflecting
the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped October 13, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Page 5: Table of Contents: Change the font color to black.
b. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks: Add the following text “In the case of inconsistencies, the larger
setback provision shall apply.”
c. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks, Exhibit 6 Landscape 6 Inset: Modify the legend in the replace
"Landscape Setbacks Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape
Setbacks not adjacent to a public street".
d. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, d. Parking Lot Areas and
Structured Parking: Add a row titled “Surface Parking Shade” with the
following standard “All new surface parking areas after the adoption of the
PUD will be shaded to 25% by vegetative shade.”
e. Page 41: Design Guidelines, h. Fences and Walls: Delete No. 1 “Shall
comply with the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 703” and
renumber the subsequent guidelines.
f. Page 54: Exhibit 6: Modify the legend in the replace "Landscape Setbacks
Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape Setbacks not adjacent
to a public street".
2. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of
the 18th Street Alignment. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be
constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum
depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection of Thomas
Road and the 18th Street alignment according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop
pad at full maturity.
3. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of
Children's Way. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 12
feet. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop
pad at full maturity.
Page 295
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
4. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City.
5. 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.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according
to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney.
7. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final
site plan approval.
8. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Nick Klimek
October 28, 2021
Page 296
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD Narrative date stamped October 13, 2021
Page 297
CASA TOMAS 18TH PL
VERDE LN C-2
18TH ST
C-2
R1-6 R-5
HGT/WVR* HGT/WVR C-2*
C-1 * C-2 * Z-239-85 SP * Z-74-96
C-2 * C-2 HR* Z-11-16
HR SP Z-SP-29-97
Z-140-02 Z-108-97
Z-16-96 C-1 R-5 Z-133-07 Z-SP-24-07 Z-SP-29-97
THOMAS RD
C-2 SP * C-O *
Z-133-95 Z-95-85
Z-SP-35-95
R-5
RI
R-5 RI *
Z-SP-14-68 C-2
R-5
17TH PL HR
RI
Z-129-89
R-4 C-2 C-2 *
RI R-3 *
H-R SP
Z-SP-17-01 Piestewa
Parkway
HGT/WVR
Specific Plan
Z-129-89
Z-181-86
CAMBRIDGE AVE
R-5 C-2 * C-2 *
C-2 *
HGT/WVR
Z-49-07
Z-SP-7-81
Z-SP-27-81
R1-10
Z-129-05 Z-129-89
Z-111-96 51
£
¤
VIRGINIA AVE VIRGINIA AVE
P-1
Z-70-01 C-O *
17TH WAY
P-1* C-O/G-O Z-4-86
R1-6
17TH ST
Z-129-89
Z-129-89
YALE ST
P-1 * Z-293-82 R-3 R-3
Z-104-89 R-3
RI RI
SHERIDAN ST
20TH PL
IMiles
Z-25-20 Gr a
nd C
a n al
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Phoenix Children's Hospital R-3 RI ( 3.46 a.c.)
FROM: R-5 RI ( 1.25 a.c.)
C-O ( 1.20 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
7/14/2020 C-O/G-O ( 1.30 a.c.)
Z-25-20 REVISION DATES: C-2 SP ( 2.85 a.c.)
8/30/2021 C-2 HR ( 21.71 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP) (1.00 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
C-2 HR SP ( 0.31 a.c.)
QUARTER SEC. NO. C-2 HGT/WVR ( 7.70 a.c.)
42.65 Acres QS G-9 14-31 TO:
P-1 ( 1.87 a.c.)
PUD ( 42.65 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3 RI, R-5 RI, C-O, C-O/G-O, C-2 SP, C-2 HR, 75, 54, N/A, N/A, 41, 3,152, 145 ( 145), 60, 65, N/A, N/A, 49, 377, 17 ( 17),
C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP), C-2 HR SP, C-2 HGT/WVR, P-1 45, 111, N/A 5, 134, N/A
PUD N/A N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-25-20_Revised_Legal.mxd
Page 298
CASA TOMAS 18TH PL
VERDE LN C-2
18TH ST
C-2
R1-6 R-5
HGT/WVR* HGT/WVR C-2*
C-1 * C-2 * Z-239-85 SP * Z-74-96
C-2 * C-2 HR* Z-11-16
HR SP Z-SP-29-97
Z-140-02 Z-108-97
Z-16-96 C-1 R-5 Z-133-07 Z-SP-24-07 Z-SP-29-97
THOMAS RD
C-2 SP * C-O *
Z-133-95 Z-95-85
Z-SP-35-95
R-5
RI
R-5 RI *
Z-SP-14-68 C-2
R-5
17TH PL HR
RI
Z-129-89
R-4 C-2 C-2 *
RI R-3 *
H-R SP
Z-SP-17-01 Piestewa
Parkway
HGT/WVR
Specific Plan
Z-129-89
Z-181-86
CAMBRIDGE AVE
R-5 C-2 * C-2 *
C-2 *
HGT/WVR
Z-49-07
Z-SP-7-81
Z-SP-27-81
R1-10
Z-129-05 Z-129-89
Z-111-96 51
£
¤
VIRGINIA AVE VIRGINIA AVE
P-1
Z-70-01 C-O *
17TH WAY
P-1* C-O/G-O Z-4-86
R1-6
17TH ST
Z-129-89
Z-129-89
YALE ST
P-1 * Z-293-82 R-3 R-3
Z-104-89 R-3
RI RI
mapservices@phoenix.gov
SHERIDAN ST
20TH PL
IMiles
Z-25-20 Gr a
nd C
a n al
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Phoenix Children's Hospital R-3 RI ( 3.46 a.c.)
FROM: R-5 RI ( 1.25 a.c.)
C-O ( 1.20 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
7/14/2020 C-O/G-O ( 1.30 a.c.)
Z-25-20 REVISION DATES: C-2 SP ( 2.85 a.c.)
8/30/2021 C-2 HR ( 21.71 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP) (1.00 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
C-2 HR SP ( 0.31 a.c.)
QUARTER SEC. NO. C-2 HGT/WVR ( 7.70 a.c.)
42.65 Acres QS G-9 14-31 TO:
P-1 ( 1.87 a.c.)
PUD ( 42.65 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3 RI, R-5 RI, C-O, C-O/G-O, C-2 SP, C-2 HR, 75, 54, N/A, N/A, 41, 3,152, 145 ( 145), 60, 65, N/A, N/A, 49, 377, 17 ( 17),
C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP), C-2 HR SP, C-2 HGT/WVR, P-1 45, 111, N/A 5, 134, N/A
PUD N/A N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-25-20_Revised_Legal.mxd
Page 299
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-25-21-4
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting September 13, 2021
Request From R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential
Infill District), C-O (Commercial Office District), C-O/G-O
(Commercial Office / General Office), C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit), C-2 HR (Intermediate
Commercial, High-Rise District), C-2 HR (Approved C-2
HR SP) (Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise District,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise District,
Special Permit), C-2 HR SP (Intermediate Commercial,
High-Rise District, Special Permit), C-2 HGT/WVR
(Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver), and P-1
(Parking)
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD to allow for a medical
campus
Location Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas
Road
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
No speaker cards were received on this item.
STAFF INTRODUCTION
Klimek provided an overview of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning tool which
allows for flexibility on unusual sites and proposals to deliver a built-environment
superior to that possible through conventional zoning. He indicated that the purpose of
this Informational Hearing is for the committee to receive an overview of the proposal
and to solicit directive comments that can be incorporated into the hearing draft that will
return for a recommendation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Taylor Earl, of Earl and Curley, introduced himself as representing Phoenix Children’s
Hospital. He provided an overview of Phoenix Children’s Hospital, its mission, and its
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 300
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 13, 2021
many accolades. The current campus is governed by multiple individual zoning cases
with different zoning districts and a variety of stipulations pertaining to each and this
fragmentation makes it difficult to develop a cohesive campus. The PUD will simplify the
zoning on the site, will articulate high quality design standards, and will allow for
Phoenix Children’s Hospital to continue thriving on this site.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Vice Chair Bryck asked if the expansion of the campus will require more helipads or
create additional helicopter trips.
• Dave Cottle, of Phoenix Children’s Hospital, responded that not additional
helipads will be required on the campus and the existing pad has adequate
capacity.
• Earl added that the original stipulation language from the Special Permit
Rezoning Case for the helipad is being added to the PUD.
Procaccini asked about the plan for the parcel located southwest of the main campus,
noting it appears to be disconnected, ideal for a land-swap to make for a more
contiguous campus, that it is adjacent to residential, and that its shape does not appear
conducive for much vertical redevelopment.
• Earl responded that land acquisition is always a challenge and that the
referenced site is what they could get ahold of, is geographically constrained by
its shape, and is disconnected from the core of the campus. Additionally,
because healthcare is changing, Phoenix Children’s Hospital does not know
exactly what future development will be needed or where it will happen on the
campus. Due to the location of the site and the odd shape, the PUD proposed to
voluntarily restrict the height of development on this parcel to 30 feet which is
similar or less than the existing entitlement.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 301
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-25-20-4
Date of VPC Meeting November 1, 2021
Request From R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential
Infill District), C-O (Commercial Office – Restricted
Commercial District), C-O/G-O (Commercial Office –
Restricted Commercial District / General Office), C-2 SP
(Intermediate Commercial District, Special Permit), C-2 HR
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise District), C-2
HR (Approved C-2 HR SP) (Intermediate Commercial
District, High-Rise District, Approved Intermediate
Commercial District, High-Rise District, Special Permit), C-
2 HR SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise
District, Special Permit), C-2 HGT/WVR (Intermediate
Commercial District, Height Waiver), and P-1 (Passenger
Automobile Parking, Limited)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD to allow for a medical
campus
Location Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas
Road
VPC Recommendation Approve, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
No speaker cards were received on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, introduced the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on
the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus. The request will consolidate 10+ zoning
districts into a single PUD that includes enhanced development and design
requirements, integrates entitlements from previously approved zoning cases,
and provides standards that focus on pedestrian connectivity, shade, and
perimeter treatments including setbacks. These requirements contained in the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 302
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
PUD include: a pedestrian circulation plan to unify the campus as it continues to
develop, detached sidewalks with all new development that will be shaded to 75
percent by vegetation, new private pathways that will be shaded to 75 percent by
vegetation, new surface parking lots that will be shaded to 25 percent by
vegetation, and height restrictions to limit the greatest intensity to along Thomas
Road and the S.R. 51. He concluded by stating that staff is recommending
approval subject to 11 stipulations including: technical corrections, shaded bus
pads, a traffic impact statement, ADA compliance for all streets, and standard
stipulations pertaining to Aviation and Archaeology.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Taylor Earl, of Earl and Curley, introduced himself as representing Phoenix
Children’s Hospital. He provided an overview of Phoenix Children’s Hospital, its
mission, and its many accolades. The current campus is governed by multiple
individual zoning cases with different zoning districts and a variety of stipulations
pertaining to each and this fragmentation makes it difficult to develop a cohesive
campus. The PUD zoning tool was not available at the time of previous zoning
entitlement or else it would have been used because it is the ideal zoning district
for a campus such as Phoenix Children’s Hospital. The PUD will simplify the
zoning on the site, allow for easier master planning, and articulates design
standards beyond that prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Procaccini noted that Children’s Way is misspelled on all aerial photographs in
the narrative and that Virginia Avenue is incorrectly identified as Virginia Street.
He added that he is hopeful the applicant will take extra care in developing the
most southwesterly parcel because it is surrounded by residential uses.
Jewett and George asked staff for an update on the Bus Rapid Transit and if it is
still planned for Thomas Road. Klimek responded that Thomas Road was not
selected as part of the foundational network of the BRT system but that, to his
knowledge, it may still be a later extension. The foundational network will be 35th
Avenue and Van Buren into downtown.
Jewett noted that the bus routes along Thomas Road have high ridership and
frequent routes; he asked why the presentations and the PUD do not more
directly address how the campus will be designed with consideration toward this
transit corridor, which may still receive BRT in the future. He also noted that the
campus is a large superblock and that all discussion in the presentations and the
PUD are focused on internal connectivity rather than connectivity with the
surrounding neighborhoods to, for example, provide a direct connection through
the campus to the businesses along Thomas Road.
• Regarding transit orientation, Earl responded that many employees are
medical professionals who travel from throughout the region, so bus
service is not always practical and that many patients and visitors travel to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 303
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
the hospital in emergencies or tend not to use bus service for other
reasons.
• Regarding through-routes for pedestrians, Earl responded that campus
security is an important element for any pediatric hospital and that open
access is not consistent with the safe environment that Phoenix Children’s
Hospital has created and wishes to expand.
Vice Chair Bryck note that the campus is near the Oak Street Bikeway which is
currently in development and that it is also near the Grand Canal which was
recently improved through the Grand Canalscape project. He further noted that
the pedestrian and bicycle connections under the S.R. 51 on Thomas Road
appears uncomfortable. He asked that the applicant explore these topics as they
consider the expansion of the campus. Earl responded that they met with several
active transportation planners from the City of Phoenix, so they are aware of the
nearby bicycle projects and have included bike racks as requested by staff. He
added that they recognize the S.R. 51 crossing is not ideal and have met with the
city on potential solutions which may also need ADOT involvement.
Wagner stated that Phoenix Children’s Hospital is a tremendous asset. She
stated that the PUD discussed signage for both decoration and branding which
may be appropriate along Thomas Road but expressed that lighted signage and
branding along the south and west boundaries should be limited in its height and
intensity when facing the neighborhoods. Earl responded that the campus has its
signs regulated through a Comprehensive Sign Plan which includes provisions
that the tower be decorative and that these lessen outward from the main tower.
He added that the campus is well respected in the area for their attention to
security and on their sensitivity to the neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
MOTION
Procaccini moved to approve per the staff recommendation. Wagner seconded
the motion.
DISCUSSION
None.
VOTE
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 304
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
12-0-0; motion passed with Benjamin, Coates, George, Jewett, Mahrle,
Matthews, Procaccini, Rodriguez, Searles, Wagner, Vice Chair Bryck, and Chair
Kleinman in support; none in dissent; and none in abstention.
STAFF COMMENTS
Member Procaccini noted during the discussion that all exhibits contained in the
Development Narrative include the following two discrepancies:
• “Children’s Way” is misspelled “Childerns Way”
• “Virginia Avenue” is incorrectly identified as “Virginia Street”
Staff has received the comment and concurs with the suggestions that both errors have
merit and, if desired, can be corrected without creating issues within the PUD.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 305
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
(Companion Case GPA-EN-1-20-4)
Location: Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road
From: R-3 RI, R-5 RI, P-1, C-O, C-O/G-O, C-2 SP, C-2 HGT/WVR, C-2 H-R, C-2
H-R SP, and C-2 H-R (Approved C-2 H-R SP)
To: PUD
Acreage: 42.65
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow a medical campus
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 9/13/2021 Information only.
Encanto 11/1/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote 12-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-25-20-4, per the Encanto
Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as read into the
record.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Public/Quasi-Public, pending the Companion General Plan Amendment GPA-EN-1-20.
2. The development narrative provides a unified regulatory framework for the entire
campus that addresses design, intensity, multi-modal connectivity, and compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
Page 306
3. The development narrative provides enhanced design standards, landscape standards,
and streetscape standards that will promote high-quality development in the expansion
of this major healthcare campus.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative
date stamped October 13, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Page 5: Table of Contents: Change the font color to black.
b. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks: Add the following text “In the case of inconsistencies, the larger
setback provision shall apply.”
c. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks, Exhibit 6 Landscape 6 Inset: Modify the legend in the replace
"Landscape Setbacks Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape
Setbacks not adjacent to a public street".
d. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, d. Parking Lot Areas and
Structured Parking: Add a row titled “Surface Parking Shade” with the following
standard “All new surface parking areas after the adoption of the PUD will be
shaded to 25% by vegetative shade.”
e. Page 41: Design Guidelines, h. Fences and Walls: Delete No. 1 “Shall comply
with the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 703” and renumber the
subsequent guidelines.
f. Page 54: Exhibit 6: Modify the legend in the replace "Landscape Setbacks
Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape Setbacks not adjacent to
a public street".
2. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of the
18th Street Alignment. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet.
The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection of Thomas Road and the 18th
Street alignment according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be
placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full maturity.
3. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of
Children's Way. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 12 feet.
Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full
maturity.
4. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City.
Page 307
5. 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.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the
property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates
and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.
7. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix for
the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final site plan
approval.
8. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION
FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 308
Report
(Phoenix Children's Hospital PUD) - Southwest Corner of the SR-51 Freeway and
Thomas Road (Ordinance G-6928)
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-25-20-4 and rezone the site from R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential
Infill District), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill District), C-O
(Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District), C-O/G-O (Commercial Office -
Restricted Commercial District / General Office), C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial
District, Special Permit), C-2 H-R (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise
District), C-2 H-R (Approved C-2 HR SP) (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise
District, Approved Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise District, Special
Permit), C-2 H-R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise District, Special
Permit), C-2 HGT/WVR (Intermediate Commercial District, Height Waiver), and P-1
(Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development
District) for the Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD to allow a medical campus. This is a
companion case and should be heard following GPA-EN-1-20-4.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-3 RI (3.46 acres), R-5 RI (1.25 acres), C-O (1.20 acres), C-O/G-O
(1.30 acres), C-2 SP (2.85 acres), C-2 H-R (21.71 acres), C-2 H-R (Approved C-2 H-R
SP) (1.00 acre), C-2 H-R SP (0.31-acres), C-2 HGT/WVR (7.70 acres), and P-1 (1.87
acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 42.65 acres
Proposed Use: Medical Campus
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 13, 2021
Page 270
for information only.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 1, 2021
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulations, by a vote of 7-0.
Location
Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: Parcel Addresses: 2700 N. 18th Place; 1741, 1801, 1813, 1829, and
1919 E. Thomas Road; 1725, 1785, and 1810 E. Windsor Ave.; 1821, 1827, 1919,
1920, and 1980 E. Cambridge Ave.; 1822, 1826, 1828, 1830, and 1832 E. Virginia
Ave.; and 1706, 1724, and 1726 E. Yale St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 271
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
(Z-25-20-4) FROM R-3 RI (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL INFILL DISTRICT), R-5 RI
(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL INFILL
DISTRICT), C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT), C-O/G-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE –
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT / GENERAL OFFICE), C-
2 SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SPECIAL
PERMIT), C-2 H-R (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
HIGH-RISE DISTRICT), C-2 H-R (APPROVED C-2 H-R SP)
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, HIGH-RISE
DISTRICT, APPROVED INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, HIGH-RISE DISTRICT, SPECIAL PERMIT), C-2 H-R
SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, HIGH-RISE
DISTRICT, SPECIAL PERMIT), C-2 HGT/WVR (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, HEIGHT WAIVER), AND P-1
(PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE PARKING, LIMITED DISTRICT) TO
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 42.65-acre site located at the southwest
corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road, in a portion of Section 34, Township 2
North, and Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby
changed from 3.46-acres of “R-3 RI” (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District), 1.25-acres of “R-5 RI” (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill District),
Page 272
1.20-acres of “C-O” (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District), 1.30-acres of
“C-O/G-O” (Commercial Office - Restricted Commercial District / General Office), 2.85-
acres of “C-2 SP” (Intermediate Commercial District, Special Permit), 7.70-acres of “C-2
HGT/WVR” (Intermediate Commercial District, Height Waiver), 21.71-acres of “C-2 H-R”
(Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density
District), 0.31-acres of “C-2 H-R SP” (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R
District—High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit), 1.00 acre of “C-2 H-R
(Approved C-2 H-R SP)” (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R District—
High-Rise and High Density District, Approved Intermediate Commercial District, High-
Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit), and 1.87-acres
“P-1” (Parking District) to 42.65-acres of “PUD” (Planned Unit Development 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. An updated Development Narrative for Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of
this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped October 13, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Page 5: Table of Contents: Change the font color to black.
b. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks: Add the following text “In the case of inconsistencies, the larger
setback provision shall apply.”
Page 273
c. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks, Exhibit 6 Landscape 6 Inset: Modify the legend in the replace
"Landscape Setbacks Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with
"Landscape Setbacks not adjacent to a public street".
d. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, d. Parking Lot Areas and
Structured Parking: Add a row titled “Surface Parking Shade” with the
following standard “All new surface parking areas after the adoption of the
PUD will be shaded to 25% by vegetative shade.”
e. Page 41: Design Guidelines, h. Fences and Walls: Delete No. 1 “Shall
comply with the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 703” and
renumber the subsequent guidelines.
f. Page 54: Exhibit 6: Modify the legend in the replace "Landscape Setbacks
Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape Setbacks not
adjacent to a public street".
2. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east
of the 18th Street Alignment. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be
constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum
depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection of
Thomas Road and the 18th Street alignment according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade
coverage to the bus stop pad at full maturity.
3. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east
of Children's Way. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be
constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum
depth of 12 feet. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to
the bus stop pad at full maturity.
4. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City.
5. 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.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
Page 274
7. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
8. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
Page 275
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (4 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 276
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-25-20-4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOTS A, B, C, D, E, F AND G
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, FROM
WHICH THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2636.25 FEET;
THENCE UPON AND WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 34,SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 143.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 540.05 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 41
MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS
BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.85 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 20TH STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
255.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89
DEGREES 22 MINUTES 08 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.72 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, UPON AND
WITH SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 53
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 727.79 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 12
MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 179.87 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
184.74 FEET;
Page 277
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
180.47 FEET TO THE AFORESAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE
AVENUE;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOTS A, B, C, D, E, F AND G
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, FROM
WHICH THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2636.25 FEET;
THENCE UPON AND WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 34, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 143.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 540.05 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 41
MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS
BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.85 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 20TH STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
255.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89
DEGREES 22 MINUTES 08 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.72 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, UPON AND
WITH SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 53
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 727.79 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 12
MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 179.87 FEET;
Page 278
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
184.74 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
180.47 FEET TO THE AFORESAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE
AVENUE;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR COMBINED LOTS K, L , M, N, O, P AND Q
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, FROM
WHICH THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2636.25 FEET;
THENCE UPON AND WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 34, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 988.85 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE
AND 20TH STREET;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 37.46 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 15
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF THE AFORESAID 20TH STREET AND BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE UPON AND WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 255.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 12.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89
DEGREES 23 MINUTES 25 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.72 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF VIRGINIA AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, UPON AND WITH SAID
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 09 SECONDS
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 396.65 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
5.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
155.68 FEET;
Page 279
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 52 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
5.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
485.35 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING THE AFORESAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 00
DEGREES 18 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 279.25 FEET TO THE
SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE;
Page 280
Page 281
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-25-20-4
(Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Encanto Village Planning Committee November 1, 2021
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 4, 2021
Request From: R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District,
Residential Infill District) (3.46 acres), R-5 RI
(Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District) (1.25 acres), C-O (Commercial Office -
Restricted Commercial District) (1.20 acres), C-
O/G-O (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial District / General Office) (1.30
acres), C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial
District, Special Permit) (2.85 acres), C-2 HGT /
WVR (Intermediate Commercial District, Height
Waiver) (7.70 acres), C-2 H-R (Intermediate
Commercial, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise
and High Density District) (21.71 acres), C-2 H-
R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-
Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density
District, Special Permit) (0.31 acres), C-2 H-R
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-
R District—High-Rise and High Density District)
(1.00 acres) (Approved C-2 H-R SP
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-
R District—High-Rise and High Density District,
Special Permit (1.00 acres), and P-1 (Parking)
(1.87 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (42.65 acres)
Proposed Use: PUD to allow for a medical campus
Location: Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and
Thomas Road
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
Page 282
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
General Plan Conformity
Current Designation: Public/Quasi Public
(21.59 acres), Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre (19.07 acres), and
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial (2.53 acres)
Proposed (GPA-EN-1-20-4 for 21.06
acres):
Varies, 42 to 54-foot
Thomas Road Arterial
south half street
50-foot full street
Windsor Avenue Local Street
25-foot south half street
50-foot full street
Cambridge Varies, 25 to 32-feet
Local Street
Avenue north half street
Street Map
25-foot south half street
Classification
Varies, 25 to 30 foot-
Virginia Avenue Local Street
north half street
Yale Street Local Street 25-foot north half street
17th Place Local Street 10-foot east half street
Varies, 0 to 30-foot west
20th Street Local Street
half street
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; JOB CREATION
(EMPLOYERS); LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support General Plan Land Use Map and
zoning changes that will facilitate the location of employment generating uses in
each of the designated employment centers.
The PUD will support and facilitate ongoing investment and development of the Phoenix
Children’s Hospital Campus, which serves as one of the area’s largest employers. By
consolidating multiple zoning districts into a single PUD, the process for master
planning and expanding will be streamlined. While the subject site is not located in a
designated employment center, the Phoenix Children’s Hospital contains a cluster of
complementary uses and employers with immediate access to a freeway and an arterial
street.
Page 283
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: New development should minimize surface parking areas
and provide an abundance of shade through either trees or structures on any
planned parking areas.
The Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus includes a significant amount of structured
parking and the vision provided in the PUD is for a compact and complete medical
campus, that does not rely significantly on surface parking. The PUD includes
provisions that all new surface parking lots will be shaded to 25 percent by vegetative
shade and that 50 percent of the spaces will have structural shade.
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 includes provisions to create pedestrian friendly streetscape environments
with shaded and detached sidewalks in new developments with a requirement for 75
percent shade. Additionally, the PUD includes enhanced tree planting standards for
open space areas and along private pedestrian walkways.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Piestewa Peak Parkway Specific Plan: See Background Item No. 11.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 12.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 13.
Zero Waste Phoenix: See Background Item No. 14.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 42.65 acres located at the southwest corner of the State
Route 51 Freeway and Thomas Road from R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District,
Residential Infill District) (3.46 acres), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District,
Residential Infill District) (1.25 acres), C-O (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial District) (1.20 acres), C-O/G-O (Commercial Office - Restricted
Commercial District / General Office) (1.30 acres), C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial District, Special Permit) (2.85 acres), C-2 HGT / WVR (Intermediate
Commercial District, Height Waiver) (7.70 acres), C-2 H-R (Intermediate
Commercial, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density District) (21.71
acres), C-2 H-R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R District—
High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit) (0.31 acres), C-2 H-R
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High
Density District) (Approved C-2 H-R SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-
Page 284
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Rise H-R District—High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit (1.00 acres),
and P-1 (Parking) (1.87 acres) to allow for the Phoenix Children’s Hospital medical
campus. The subject site is located in an area generally bounded by Thomas Road
on the north, Yale Street on the south, 17th Street on the west, and the State Route
51 on the east.
2. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is a mixture of
several designations including Public/Quasi Public, Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre, and Commercial. A companion General Plan Amendment case,
GPA-EN-1-20-4, has been filed to update the General Plan Land Use Map
designation to consolidate the entire campus to Public/Quasi-Public.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
3. The subject site was first Historic Advertisement, Source: PUD Narrative.
developed in 1961 as the
Doctors Hospital and has since
operated as Humana Hospital,
the Phoenix Regional Medical
Office, and then from 2000 as
Phoenix Children’s Hospital.
The subject site operates as a
medical campus as the
principal use and with
accessory uses typical of a
major hospital campus, such as
offices. The existing campus
includes a mix of building heights ranging from one and two stories up to the tower
at the center of the campus which reaches a height of 192 feet.
West, south of Thomas Road and north of Cambridge Avenue:
Immediately adjacent to the subject site at the above location is primarily
multifamily and office uses zoned for R-3 RI and R-5 RI. The R-5 RI site located
along Thomas Road immediately west of the subject site is built to two-stories tall
but is zoned to allow a maximum height of six-stories and 65 feet. The remainder of
properties adjacent to the subject site are zoned R-3 RI which limits development to
two-stories or 30 feet with a maximum height of four-stories and 48 feet subject to
setback requirements.
Non-Contiguous site, south of Cambridge Avenue and north of Yale Street:
The non-contiguous parcel located in the most southwesterly portion of the subject
site is adjacent to a mix of single-family and multifamily dwellings ranging in height
from one to two stories but zoned R-3 RI which limits development to two-stories or
30 feet with a maximum height of four-stories and 48 feet subject to setback
requirements.
Page 285
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
South of Cambridge Avenue and north of Virginia Avenue:
To the south and west of this portion of the site are a mix of single-family and
multifamily dwellings ranging in height from one to two stories but zoned R-3 RI
which limits development to two-stories or 30 feet with a maximum height of four-
stories and 48 feet subject to setback requirements. To the east of this site is a
four-level parking structure and conference center zoned C-2 HGT / WVR and built
at an approximate height of 44 feet.
East, north of Cambridge Avenue:
Located immediately east of the subject site but north of Cambridge Avenue is 20th
Street. Beyond 20th Street is the State Route 51 which is elevated at this location.
In total, the right-of-way measures approximately 440 feet in width before the
nearest private property.
North of Thomas Road:
Located north, across Thomas Road from the subject site are a mix of uses
including surface parking, offices, multifamily residences, commercial, and
healthcare. From the west near 17th Place, most of the parcels are developed in a
single-story form which increases to three and four stories in height approaching
State Route 51. This mix of land uses is achieved through a mix of zoning including
R-5, C-1, C-2 HGT/WVR, and C-2 HGT/WVR SP.
Interior to Campus: There are two parcels located within the perimeter boundary of
the subject site but not included in the rezoning case.
Located at the northeast corner fo Cambridge Avenue and 18th Place is a City of
Phoenix Fire Station. This site is one-story and zoned R-3 which allows a height of
two-stories or 30 feet with a maximum height of four-stories and 48 feet subject to
setback requirements.
Located north of Windsor Avenue near the western edge of the rezoning boundary
is a parcel owned and operated by the State of Arizona which is built to one-story in
height but zoned R-5 RI which allows a maximum height of six-stories and 65 feet.
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal utilizes the PUD zoning district which 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
proposes standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of the specific
site. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions are applied.
Page 286
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
The proposal is to consolidate the 10 zoning districts that currently govern
development on the campus into a comprehensive set of regulations, requirements,
and design standards contained in the PUD Development Narrative, herein referred
to as the “development narrative.”
5. Site Plan
The development narrative contains a series of site plans depicting the overall flow
of the existing campus and their vision for how future development on the site may
occur. Elements of this conceptual plan are incorporated into the body of the
narrative to regulate certain elements of the campus, including building heights in
addition to building and landscape setbacks.
Exhibit 4: Land Use Exhibit, Source: PUD Narrative.
6. Land Use
The development narrative is written to permit a mix of uses that will complement
the overall mission of Phoenix Children’s Hospital through operational and
locational synergies.
Permitted uses: Administrative offices; behavioral health including both inpatient
and outpatient; birthing center; blood donation; central service facilities; medical,
Page 287
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
dental, and clinical offices; conference/training facilities; health and support
services; hospice care; hospital; hospital service organizations; medical technology
research and development; nursing or medical training facilities; office; parking
structures and surface parking; pharmacies; rehabilitation services; research
laboratories; respite care; and women and children center.
Permitted accessory uses: Ancillary uses, temporary lodging, child day care; and
helistop (existing and subject to current stipulations).
Permitted temporary uses: Temporary parking lots.
7. Development Standards
The development narrative includes development standards such as height,
setbacks, lot coverage, and open space requirements in addition to landscape
planting standards, parking requirements, and others; this summary focuses on key
elements of the development standards section. The narrative and its development
standards are written to allow for vertical and horizontal expansion of the health
campus while respecting the interface with the nearby neighborhoods, primarily
through where the greatest height is permitted and by prescribing perimeter
setbacks.
Height: Exhibit 7: Building Heights, Source: PUD Narrative.
The development narrative
consolidates existing height
permissions from previous zoning
cases with few minor exceptions.
The maximum height permitted by
the narrative is 247 feet which is
the existing height of the hospital
tower at the center of the campus.
Additional height is focused along
Thomas Road and along State
Route 51, where the campus can
achieve the greatest visibility and
least impact to nearby residential
neighborhoods.
As depicted in Exhibit 7 to the right, the narrative restricts height to 30 feet in the
most southwesterly portion of the site, to 56 feet south of Cambridge Avenue and
north of Virginia Avenue, to 56 feet adjacent to the west zoning boundary with the
exception of the most northwesterly portion of the site adjacent to Thomas Road
which is restricted to maximum height of 96 feet.
Page 288
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Setbacks: The development narrative prescribes a height-based setback regime for
building and landscape setbacks for when sites are adjacent to public streets,
residential uses, and non-residential uses.
Building and Landscape Setbacks (Adjacent to Public Streets):
Building Setback (Min.) Building Setback (Min.) Landscape Setback (Min.)
2 stories or less Greater than 2 stories N/A
Thomas Road 25' 25' 25'
20th Street 15' 15' 15'
Cambridge Avenue
17th Place
15'
18th Place 15' 30’
Virginia Street
Yale Street
Perimeter Building and Landscape Setbacks (Adjacent to Residential Uses):
• Building Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30 feet,
the narrative requires a minimum building setback of 10 feet. When a
structure is greater than 2 stories or 30 feet, the narrative requires a
minimum building setback of 20 feet.
• Landscape Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30
feet, the narrative requires a minimum landscape setback of 5 feet. When a
structure is greater than 2 stories or 30 feet, the narrative requires a
minimum landscape setback of 20 feet.
Perimeter Building and Landscape Setbacks (Adjacent to Non-Residential Uses):
• Building Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30 feet,
the narrative requires a minimum building setback of 5 feet. The
undermentioned landscape setback requirement for a 20 foot minimum
landscape setback for buildings greater than 2 stories or 30 feet would, by
default, create a 20 foot minimum building setback.
• Landscape Setbacks: When a structure is two-stories or a maximum of 30
feet, the narrative requires a minimum landscape setback of 5 feet. When a
structure is greater than 2 stories or 30 feet, the narrative requires a
minimum landscape setback of 20 feet. (Page 15).
Campus Development Standards:
While much of the campus is existing, the development narrative prescribes
additional requirements for all new development and, in some cases, for the
campus in aggregate. The below section is divided into “new development” and
“aggregate campus” standards.
Page 289
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
New Development:
• Shaded and detached public sidewalks: With development or
redevelopment, sidewalks will be detached from the curb by a minimum
landscape area of 5 feet in width and will be shaded to 75 percent.
• Shaded private pedestrian pathways: All new pedestrian pathways will be
shaded to 50 percent.
• Shaded surface parking: All new surface parking lots will be landscaped and
shaded to 25 percent by vegetative shade and 50 percent of required
parking spaces will be shaded via architectural shade, as addressed in
Stipulation No. 1.d.
• Bicycle parking: All new buildings will include one new bicycle rack.
Aggregate Campus:
• Surface parking lots: A minimum 10 percent area of all surface parking lots –
new and existing – will be landscape, as addressed in Stipulation No. 1d.
• Open space: A minimum 5 percent of the gross area will be open space and
with individual spaces programmed for active uses such as play areas,
outdoor dining, and patios and passive spaces to provide an aesthetically
pleasing and calming element to the campus through turf and landscaping.
• Pedestrian pathways: The narrative preserves the requirement that a
pedestrian circulation plan be updated with each new development on the
campus. This plan must depict connections to nearby buildings, parking
structures and lots, and public sidewalks. In addition to the physical
connections, the plan must also depict public street crossings, shaded
walkways, and adjacent amenity programming.
8. Design Guidelines
The development narrative contains many design guidelines that add specificity to
the aesthetic and operational characteristics that will be implemented through the
requirements of the PUD. This section prescribes design requirements pertaining to
sustainable design, architectural design, open space design, and pedestrian
connectivity but this summary focuses only on key elements.
Design continuity:
The design guidelines articulate a theme for the hospital campus and specific
strategies for how the theme will be implemented across the site. This theme
includes a landscape palette, a color palette, and an approach to open space and
architectural design that is both calming and playful.
All buildings will include four-sided architecture with multiple colors, materials, and
architectural features including offsets and recesses. All new parking structures will
include multiple colors and architectural features with special emphasis on parking
structures oriented to Thomas Road or Children’s Way. The color palette will be
carried forward in landscape art, building accents, and in landscape programming.
Page 290
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
The campus will be connected by pedestrian pathways that are shaded with
adjacent spaces intentionally programmed to provide diverse experiences ranging
from playful to meditative.
9. Signage
The development narrative utilizes the existing Comprehensive Sign Plan and the
10. Sustainability
The development narrative proposes a series of sustainability features such as
green building systems, water efficient landscaping, interior water use reductions,
light color roofs, and waste diversion during construction.
11. Technical Corrections Stipulated
Staff is recommending Stipulation Nos. 1.a – 1.f to make minor technical
corrections to the development narrative. These technical corrections are minor in
their scope, correct formatting, eliminate discrepancies and unnecessary
provisions, and/or modify content for clarity. Below is a list of this technical
corrections.
• Stipulation No. 1.a: Corrects the font color on the table of contents page.
• Stipulation No. 1.b: Adds language to clarify that if any discrepancies exist
between the development narrative text and the associated exhibit, the more
stringent provision shall apply. This pertains to perimeter landscape
setbacks.
• Stipulation No. 1.c and f: Corrects language included in the legends for two
instances of the same map exhibit to more clearly describe the subject of the
map element, “landscape Setbacks not adjacent to a public street.”
• Stipulation No. 1.d: Adds language to the more clearly indicate the intent of
the development narrative to require new surface parking lots be shaded to
25 percent by vegetative shade.
• Stipulation No. 1.e: Removes a development standard related to screen
walls from the design guidelines section of the development narrative which
is both redundant to the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
STUDIES AND POLICIES
12. Piestewa Peak Parkway Specific Plan
The plan corridor is approximately one-half mile in width, just over five miles in
length, and includes the Piestewa Peak Freeway from Interstate 10 north to
Glendale Avenue. The Plan does not contain specific restrictions on land use that
differ from existing regulations. As such, this plan is deemed to be non-regulatory
but contains statements of goals, standards and policies. The medical campus was
present during the plan development in 1990 and has grown significantly since that
time.
Page 291
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
The Piestewa Peak Parkway Specific Plan contains two goals relevant to the
proposed PUD which is compatible and in alignment with the goals of the plan.
• Goal 3: “Protect and maintain viable neighborhoods, housing and other
uses.” The proposed PUD integrates previously approved stipulations
focused on neighborhood compatibility such as operational constraints on
the helipad and height restrictions.
• Goal 4: “Promote land use stability through strategic land use planning.” The
proposed PUD would consolidate several rezoning cases that were each
subject to different stipulations and development standards through piece-
meal zoning entitlements which made master planning difficult. By
consolidating the campus under a PUD, Phoenix Children’s Hospital can
begin master planning their campus and nearby stakeholders can more
easily understand the entitlements for this major campus.
13. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To support these principles related to
pedestrian connectivity and safety, the development narrative:
• Requires detached sidewalks shaded to 75 percent in all new development
to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian travel,
• Requires private pedestrian pathways shaded to 75 percent in all new
developments and connecting to public streets and on-site destinations,
• Requires bicycle parking in new developments, and
• Reduces vehicular trips through the locational synergies of a complete and
compact health and employment campus.
14. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. To support these principles related to pedestrian
connectivity and safety, the development narrative:
• Requires detached sidewalks shaded to 75 percent in all new development
to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian travel,
• Requires private pedestrian pathways shaded to 75 percent in all new
developments and connecting to public streets and on-site destinations, and
• Requires new surface parking lots be shaded to 25 percent by vegetative
means. This item is contained in the development narrative and reiterated in
Stipulation No. 1.d.
Page 292
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
15. Zero Waste Phoenix
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 narrative section on sustainability requires 50 percent
waste diversion during construction.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
16. At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any community
correspondence.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
16. The Street Transportation Department provided their standard comment requiring
all street improvements to comply with ADA standards and a stipulation requiring a
Traffic Impact Study/Statement. These items are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4
and 5.
17. The Public Transit Department provided three stipulations including that two bus
stop pads be retained and that a robust system of shaded and connected internal
pedestrian pathways be provided throughout the campus. These items are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
18. The Fire Department commented that they do not anticipate any problems serving
the site but noted that the site must comply with the Phoenix Fire Code. They
further commented that the water supply to the site (gpm and psi) has not been
determined and that additional water supply may be needed to meet the required
fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.
19. The Water Services Department commented that the site has existing water and
sewer mains that can potentially serve the development. The department added
their standard comment that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over
time due to a variety of factors. It is the City's intent to provide water and sewer
service. However, the requirements and assurances for water and sewer service
are determined during the site plan application review. For any given property,
water and sewer requirements may vary over time.
20. The Public Works Department determined that the subject site is not in a Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), but located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 2210 L of
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013.
Page 293
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
OTHER
21. The Aviation Department determined that the subject site is located within the
Traffic Pattern Airspace for Sky Harbor International Airport and that the site is
subject to maximum structure heights. Due to these proximities, the Aviation
Department requires: forms be recorded to disclose the presence and operational
characteristics of Sky Harbor International Airport to all future tenant and
purchasers, an avigation easement be granted to the City of Phoenix, and that the
applicant obtain a No Hazard Determination from the FAA for all development on
the site. These items are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6 through 8.
22. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities must
cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology
Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the
materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 9 through 11.
23. 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 request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Public/Quasi-Public, pending the Companion General Plan Amendment GPA-EN-1-
20.
2. The development narrative provides a unified regulatory framework for the entire
campus that addresses design, intensity, multi-modal connectivity, and compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
3. The development narrative provides enhanced design standards, landscape
standards, and streetscape standards that will promote high-quality development in
the expansion of this major healthcare campus
Stipulations
Page 294
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
1. An updated Development Narrative for Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD reflecting
the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped October 13, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Page 5: Table of Contents: Change the font color to black.
b. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks: Add the following text “In the case of inconsistencies, the larger
setback provision shall apply.”
c. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks, Exhibit 6 Landscape 6 Inset: Modify the legend in the replace
"Landscape Setbacks Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape
Setbacks not adjacent to a public street".
d. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, d. Parking Lot Areas and
Structured Parking: Add a row titled “Surface Parking Shade” with the
following standard “All new surface parking areas after the adoption of the
PUD will be shaded to 25% by vegetative shade.”
e. Page 41: Design Guidelines, h. Fences and Walls: Delete No. 1 “Shall
comply with the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 703” and
renumber the subsequent guidelines.
f. Page 54: Exhibit 6: Modify the legend in the replace "Landscape Setbacks
Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape Setbacks not adjacent
to a public street".
2. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of
the 18th Street Alignment. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be
constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum
depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection of Thomas
Road and the 18th Street alignment according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop
pad at full maturity.
3. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of
Children's Way. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 12
feet. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop
pad at full maturity.
Page 295
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
4. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City.
5. 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.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according
to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney.
7. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final
site plan approval.
8. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Nick Klimek
October 28, 2021
Page 296
Staff Report: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
October 28, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD Narrative date stamped October 13, 2021
Page 297
CASA TOMAS 18TH PL
VERDE LN C-2
18TH ST
C-2
R1-6 R-5
HGT/WVR* HGT/WVR C-2*
C-1 * C-2 * Z-239-85 SP * Z-74-96
C-2 * C-2 HR* Z-11-16
HR SP Z-SP-29-97
Z-140-02 Z-108-97
Z-16-96 C-1 R-5 Z-133-07 Z-SP-24-07 Z-SP-29-97
THOMAS RD
C-2 SP * C-O *
Z-133-95 Z-95-85
Z-SP-35-95
R-5
RI
R-5 RI *
Z-SP-14-68 C-2
R-5
17TH PL HR
RI
Z-129-89
R-4 C-2 C-2 *
RI R-3 *
H-R SP
Z-SP-17-01 Piestewa
Parkway
HGT/WVR
Specific Plan
Z-129-89
Z-181-86
CAMBRIDGE AVE
R-5 C-2 * C-2 *
C-2 *
HGT/WVR
Z-49-07
Z-SP-7-81
Z-SP-27-81
R1-10
Z-129-05 Z-129-89
Z-111-96 51
£
¤
VIRGINIA AVE VIRGINIA AVE
P-1
Z-70-01 C-O *
17TH WAY
P-1* C-O/G-O Z-4-86
R1-6
17TH ST
Z-129-89
Z-129-89
YALE ST
P-1 * Z-293-82 R-3 R-3
Z-104-89 R-3
RI RI
SHERIDAN ST
20TH PL
IMiles
Z-25-20 Gr a
nd C
a n al
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Phoenix Children's Hospital R-3 RI ( 3.46 a.c.)
FROM: R-5 RI ( 1.25 a.c.)
C-O ( 1.20 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
7/14/2020 C-O/G-O ( 1.30 a.c.)
Z-25-20 REVISION DATES: C-2 SP ( 2.85 a.c.)
8/30/2021 C-2 HR ( 21.71 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP) (1.00 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
C-2 HR SP ( 0.31 a.c.)
QUARTER SEC. NO. C-2 HGT/WVR ( 7.70 a.c.)
42.65 Acres QS G-9 14-31 TO:
P-1 ( 1.87 a.c.)
PUD ( 42.65 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3 RI, R-5 RI, C-O, C-O/G-O, C-2 SP, C-2 HR, 75, 54, N/A, N/A, 41, 3,152, 145 ( 145), 60, 65, N/A, N/A, 49, 377, 17 ( 17),
C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP), C-2 HR SP, C-2 HGT/WVR, P-1 45, 111, N/A 5, 134, N/A
PUD N/A N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-25-20_Revised_Legal.mxd
Page 298
CASA TOMAS 18TH PL
VERDE LN C-2
18TH ST
C-2
R1-6 R-5
HGT/WVR* HGT/WVR C-2*
C-1 * C-2 * Z-239-85 SP * Z-74-96
C-2 * C-2 HR* Z-11-16
HR SP Z-SP-29-97
Z-140-02 Z-108-97
Z-16-96 C-1 R-5 Z-133-07 Z-SP-24-07 Z-SP-29-97
THOMAS RD
C-2 SP * C-O *
Z-133-95 Z-95-85
Z-SP-35-95
R-5
RI
R-5 RI *
Z-SP-14-68 C-2
R-5
17TH PL HR
RI
Z-129-89
R-4 C-2 C-2 *
RI R-3 *
H-R SP
Z-SP-17-01 Piestewa
Parkway
HGT/WVR
Specific Plan
Z-129-89
Z-181-86
CAMBRIDGE AVE
R-5 C-2 * C-2 *
C-2 *
HGT/WVR
Z-49-07
Z-SP-7-81
Z-SP-27-81
R1-10
Z-129-05 Z-129-89
Z-111-96 51
£
¤
VIRGINIA AVE VIRGINIA AVE
P-1
Z-70-01 C-O *
17TH WAY
P-1* C-O/G-O Z-4-86
R1-6
17TH ST
Z-129-89
Z-129-89
YALE ST
P-1 * Z-293-82 R-3 R-3
Z-104-89 R-3
RI RI
mapservices@phoenix.gov
SHERIDAN ST
20TH PL
IMiles
Z-25-20 Gr a
nd C
a n al
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
MC DOWELL RD
I-17
SR 51
19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH AVE 7TH ST
16TH ST 24TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Phoenix Children's Hospital R-3 RI ( 3.46 a.c.)
FROM: R-5 RI ( 1.25 a.c.)
C-O ( 1.20 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
7/14/2020 C-O/G-O ( 1.30 a.c.)
Z-25-20 REVISION DATES: C-2 SP ( 2.85 a.c.)
8/30/2021 C-2 HR ( 21.71 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP) (1.00 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
C-2 HR SP ( 0.31 a.c.)
QUARTER SEC. NO. C-2 HGT/WVR ( 7.70 a.c.)
42.65 Acres QS G-9 14-31 TO:
P-1 ( 1.87 a.c.)
PUD ( 42.65 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3 RI, R-5 RI, C-O, C-O/G-O, C-2 SP, C-2 HR, 75, 54, N/A, N/A, 41, 3,152, 145 ( 145), 60, 65, N/A, N/A, 49, 377, 17 ( 17),
C-2 HR (Approved C-2 HR SP), C-2 HR SP, C-2 HGT/WVR, P-1 45, 111, N/A 5, 134, N/A
PUD N/A N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-25-20_Revised_Legal.mxd
Page 299
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-25-21-4
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting September 13, 2021
Request From R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential
Infill District), C-O (Commercial Office District), C-O/G-O
(Commercial Office / General Office), C-2 SP (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit), C-2 HR (Intermediate
Commercial, High-Rise District), C-2 HR (Approved C-2
HR SP) (Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise District,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise District,
Special Permit), C-2 HR SP (Intermediate Commercial,
High-Rise District, Special Permit), C-2 HGT/WVR
(Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver), and P-1
(Parking)
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD to allow for a medical
campus
Location Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas
Road
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
No speaker cards were received on this item.
STAFF INTRODUCTION
Klimek provided an overview of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning tool which
allows for flexibility on unusual sites and proposals to deliver a built-environment
superior to that possible through conventional zoning. He indicated that the purpose of
this Informational Hearing is for the committee to receive an overview of the proposal
and to solicit directive comments that can be incorporated into the hearing draft that will
return for a recommendation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Taylor Earl, of Earl and Curley, introduced himself as representing Phoenix Children’s
Hospital. He provided an overview of Phoenix Children’s Hospital, its mission, and its
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 300
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 13, 2021
many accolades. The current campus is governed by multiple individual zoning cases
with different zoning districts and a variety of stipulations pertaining to each and this
fragmentation makes it difficult to develop a cohesive campus. The PUD will simplify the
zoning on the site, will articulate high quality design standards, and will allow for
Phoenix Children’s Hospital to continue thriving on this site.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Vice Chair Bryck asked if the expansion of the campus will require more helipads or
create additional helicopter trips.
• Dave Cottle, of Phoenix Children’s Hospital, responded that not additional
helipads will be required on the campus and the existing pad has adequate
capacity.
• Earl added that the original stipulation language from the Special Permit
Rezoning Case for the helipad is being added to the PUD.
Procaccini asked about the plan for the parcel located southwest of the main campus,
noting it appears to be disconnected, ideal for a land-swap to make for a more
contiguous campus, that it is adjacent to residential, and that its shape does not appear
conducive for much vertical redevelopment.
• Earl responded that land acquisition is always a challenge and that the
referenced site is what they could get ahold of, is geographically constrained by
its shape, and is disconnected from the core of the campus. Additionally,
because healthcare is changing, Phoenix Children’s Hospital does not know
exactly what future development will be needed or where it will happen on the
campus. Due to the location of the site and the odd shape, the PUD proposed to
voluntarily restrict the height of development on this parcel to 30 feet which is
similar or less than the existing entitlement.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 301
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-25-20-4
Date of VPC Meeting November 1, 2021
Request From R-3 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill
District), R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District, Residential
Infill District), C-O (Commercial Office – Restricted
Commercial District), C-O/G-O (Commercial Office –
Restricted Commercial District / General Office), C-2 SP
(Intermediate Commercial District, Special Permit), C-2 HR
(Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise District), C-2
HR (Approved C-2 HR SP) (Intermediate Commercial
District, High-Rise District, Approved Intermediate
Commercial District, High-Rise District, Special Permit), C-
2 HR SP (Intermediate Commercial District, High-Rise
District, Special Permit), C-2 HGT/WVR (Intermediate
Commercial District, Height Waiver), and P-1 (Passenger
Automobile Parking, Limited)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD to allow for a medical
campus
Location Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas
Road
VPC Recommendation Approve, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
No speaker cards were received on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, introduced the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on
the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Campus. The request will consolidate 10+ zoning
districts into a single PUD that includes enhanced development and design
requirements, integrates entitlements from previously approved zoning cases,
and provides standards that focus on pedestrian connectivity, shade, and
perimeter treatments including setbacks. These requirements contained in the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 302
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
PUD include: a pedestrian circulation plan to unify the campus as it continues to
develop, detached sidewalks with all new development that will be shaded to 75
percent by vegetation, new private pathways that will be shaded to 75 percent by
vegetation, new surface parking lots that will be shaded to 25 percent by
vegetation, and height restrictions to limit the greatest intensity to along Thomas
Road and the S.R. 51. He concluded by stating that staff is recommending
approval subject to 11 stipulations including: technical corrections, shaded bus
pads, a traffic impact statement, ADA compliance for all streets, and standard
stipulations pertaining to Aviation and Archaeology.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Taylor Earl, of Earl and Curley, introduced himself as representing Phoenix
Children’s Hospital. He provided an overview of Phoenix Children’s Hospital, its
mission, and its many accolades. The current campus is governed by multiple
individual zoning cases with different zoning districts and a variety of stipulations
pertaining to each and this fragmentation makes it difficult to develop a cohesive
campus. The PUD zoning tool was not available at the time of previous zoning
entitlement or else it would have been used because it is the ideal zoning district
for a campus such as Phoenix Children’s Hospital. The PUD will simplify the
zoning on the site, allow for easier master planning, and articulates design
standards beyond that prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Procaccini noted that Children’s Way is misspelled on all aerial photographs in
the narrative and that Virginia Avenue is incorrectly identified as Virginia Street.
He added that he is hopeful the applicant will take extra care in developing the
most southwesterly parcel because it is surrounded by residential uses.
Jewett and George asked staff for an update on the Bus Rapid Transit and if it is
still planned for Thomas Road. Klimek responded that Thomas Road was not
selected as part of the foundational network of the BRT system but that, to his
knowledge, it may still be a later extension. The foundational network will be 35th
Avenue and Van Buren into downtown.
Jewett noted that the bus routes along Thomas Road have high ridership and
frequent routes; he asked why the presentations and the PUD do not more
directly address how the campus will be designed with consideration toward this
transit corridor, which may still receive BRT in the future. He also noted that the
campus is a large superblock and that all discussion in the presentations and the
PUD are focused on internal connectivity rather than connectivity with the
surrounding neighborhoods to, for example, provide a direct connection through
the campus to the businesses along Thomas Road.
• Regarding transit orientation, Earl responded that many employees are
medical professionals who travel from throughout the region, so bus
service is not always practical and that many patients and visitors travel to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 303
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
the hospital in emergencies or tend not to use bus service for other
reasons.
• Regarding through-routes for pedestrians, Earl responded that campus
security is an important element for any pediatric hospital and that open
access is not consistent with the safe environment that Phoenix Children’s
Hospital has created and wishes to expand.
Vice Chair Bryck note that the campus is near the Oak Street Bikeway which is
currently in development and that it is also near the Grand Canal which was
recently improved through the Grand Canalscape project. He further noted that
the pedestrian and bicycle connections under the S.R. 51 on Thomas Road
appears uncomfortable. He asked that the applicant explore these topics as they
consider the expansion of the campus. Earl responded that they met with several
active transportation planners from the City of Phoenix, so they are aware of the
nearby bicycle projects and have included bike racks as requested by staff. He
added that they recognize the S.R. 51 crossing is not ideal and have met with the
city on potential solutions which may also need ADOT involvement.
Wagner stated that Phoenix Children’s Hospital is a tremendous asset. She
stated that the PUD discussed signage for both decoration and branding which
may be appropriate along Thomas Road but expressed that lighted signage and
branding along the south and west boundaries should be limited in its height and
intensity when facing the neighborhoods. Earl responded that the campus has its
signs regulated through a Comprehensive Sign Plan which includes provisions
that the tower be decorative and that these lessen outward from the main tower.
He added that the campus is well respected in the area for their attention to
security and on their sensitivity to the neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
MOTION
Procaccini moved to approve per the staff recommendation. Wagner seconded
the motion.
DISCUSSION
None.
VOTE
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 304
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 1, 2021
12-0-0; motion passed with Benjamin, Coates, George, Jewett, Mahrle,
Matthews, Procaccini, Rodriguez, Searles, Wagner, Vice Chair Bryck, and Chair
Kleinman in support; none in dissent; and none in abstention.
STAFF COMMENTS
Member Procaccini noted during the discussion that all exhibits contained in the
Development Narrative include the following two discrepancies:
• “Children’s Way” is misspelled “Childerns Way”
• “Virginia Avenue” is incorrectly identified as “Virginia Street”
Staff has received the comment and concurs with the suggestions that both errors have
merit and, if desired, can be corrected without creating issues within the PUD.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 305
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-25-20-4 (Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD)
(Companion Case GPA-EN-1-20-4)
Location: Southwest corner of the SR-51 Freeway and Thomas Road
From: R-3 RI, R-5 RI, P-1, C-O, C-O/G-O, C-2 SP, C-2 HGT/WVR, C-2 H-R, C-2
H-R SP, and C-2 H-R (Approved C-2 H-R SP)
To: PUD
Acreage: 42.65
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow a medical campus
Applicant: Phoenix Children's Hospital
Owner: Phoenix Children's Hospital, et al.
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 9/13/2021 Information only.
Encanto 11/1/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote 12-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-25-20-4, per the Encanto
Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as read into the
record.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Public/Quasi-Public, pending the Companion General Plan Amendment GPA-EN-1-20.
2. The development narrative provides a unified regulatory framework for the entire
campus that addresses design, intensity, multi-modal connectivity, and compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
Page 306
3. The development narrative provides enhanced design standards, landscape standards,
and streetscape standards that will promote high-quality development in the expansion
of this major healthcare campus.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for Phoenix Children’s Hospital PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative
date stamped October 13, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Page 5: Table of Contents: Change the font color to black.
b. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks: Add the following text “In the case of inconsistencies, the larger
setback provision shall apply.”
c. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, b. Perimeter Landscape
Setbacks, Exhibit 6 Landscape 6 Inset: Modify the legend in the replace
"Landscape Setbacks Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape
Setbacks not adjacent to a public street".
d. Page 15: Table 2.2: Landscape Standards Table, d. Parking Lot Areas and
Structured Parking: Add a row titled “Surface Parking Shade” with the following
standard “All new surface parking areas after the adoption of the PUD will be
shaded to 25% by vegetative shade.”
e. Page 41: Design Guidelines, h. Fences and Walls: Delete No. 1 “Shall comply
with the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 703” and renumber the
subsequent guidelines.
f. Page 54: Exhibit 6: Modify the legend in the replace "Landscape Setbacks
Perimeter (Not adjacent to a street)" with "Landscape Setbacks not adjacent to
a public street".
2. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of the
18th Street Alignment. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet.
The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection of Thomas Road and the 18th
Street alignment according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be
placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full maturity.
3. The developer shall retain the bus stop pad along eastbound Thomas Road east of
Children's Way. If relocation is necessary, the bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 12 feet.
Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full
maturity.
4. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City.
Page 307
5. 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.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the
property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates
and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.
7. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix for
the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final site plan
approval.
8. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION
FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 308
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-PV-1-
21-2 - Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road (Resolution 21980)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
Resolution if approved. This file is a companion case to Z-12-21-2 and should be
heard first, followed by Z-12-21-2.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Industrial
Proposed Plan Designation: Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce/Business Park /
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre)
Acreage: 2.56 acres
Reason for change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential
and commercial
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Applicant: John H. Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc.
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Info: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Apr. 5,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Oct.
4, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a 14-1 vote.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee, by a 7-0
vote.
Location
Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 16630 and 16640 E. Scottsdale Road.
Page 309
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 310
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-PV-1-21-2, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan which was adopted by
Resolution No. 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-PV-1-21-2, 2.56 acres
located on the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road, for Mixed Use
(Commercial / Commerce/Business Park / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre), as
approved by the City Council on December 1, 2021 and that the Planning and
Development Director is instructed to modify The 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect
this land use classification change as shown below:
Page 311
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 312
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 28, 2021
Application: GPA-PV-1-21-2
Applicant: John H Berry, The Hampton Group
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
Acreage: 2.56 acres
Current Plan Designation: Industrial (2.56 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business
Park / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre) (2.56
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential and commercial uses.
Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee Date: October 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case, Z-12-21-2, proposes development that is
consistent in scale and character with land along the Scottsdale Road corridor.
2) The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre) land use designation will permit new zoning to be applied
to the site that maximizes opportunities within the Paradise Valley Village along
two major arterial streets with existing transit options.
Page 313
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Page 2
3) The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre) land use designation will establish compatible uses within
a designated Major Employment Center.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at
the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road. The site is occupied by
a single-story commercial
building, and surface parking
areas. The current building is
partially vacant. The
companion Rezoning Case
No. Z-12-21-2 is a request to
allow PUD zoning for
multifamily residential and
commercial uses on the
entirety of the site.
Currently the site has a land
use map designation of
Industrial. The requested land
use map designation Mixed use Aerial Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
(Commercial / Commerce / Development Department
Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre) will allow for alternative housing choices in the area as well as
nonresidential uses and to provide consistency with the Kierland corridor. Recent
development suggests the Scottsdale Road corridor is evolving to a mixture of housing
choices and commercial uses. The proposed land use map change will serve as a
continuation of the proposed land use designations to the south of the subject site.
This General Plan Amendment proposes a Mixed Use land use map designation of
Commercial / Commerce Park / Residential 15+ dwelling unit per acre. This Mixed Use
designation will allow commercial, commerce park and residential land uses to locate on
the site. Maps of the existing and proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations
can be found attached to this report.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
There is one existing commercial building on the southwest quadrant of the site. The
table below provides a summary of the surrounding General Plan (GP) Land Use Map
Page 314
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Page 3
designations, existing land uses and zoning.
Location GP Land Use Existing Land Uses Zoning
North Parks/Open Space – Canal and Hotel R1-14 and C-2
(across Publicly Owned
Bell Road)
South Industrial Convenience store C-2
East Mixed Use Commercial Planned
(across Neighborhoods/Regional office/shopping center Regional Center
Scottsdale Use District (PRC) (City of
Road) Scottsdale)
West Industrial Retail C-2
Surrounding Land Use Designations, Land Use and Zoning
The site falls within the boundaries of the
Maricopa Association of Governments
designated Desert Ridge/Kierland major
employment center and City of Phoenix
designated employment center. Providing
additional housing options in close
proximity to the nearby workforce will add
to the sustainability of established office
space and commercial uses built around
the Desert Ridge/Kierland Major
Employment Center.
Major Employment Center Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PPRINCIPLES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUEOPPORTUNITY SITES;
OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage
compatible development and redevelopment with a mix of housing types in
neighborhoods close to employment centers, commercial areas, and where
transit or transportation alternatives exist.
Page 315
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Page 4
The proposed request supports the proposed development that is compatible in
scale and intensity with the surrounding area. The development is located in a
mixed-use corridor where adjacent properties are residential or commercial. The
site also sits on the corner of two Major Arterials. The concentration of people
within an Employment center and near employment uses and transportation
corridors promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses. Further, the
opportunity to add additional housing choices is consistent with the goals of the
Housing Phoenix Plan.
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; 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 land use map amendment would facilitate the opportunity for
additional residential and commercial development adjacent to existing transit
lines and within a corridor that has supported additional height and intensity.
• 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 request facilitates additional residential options adjacent to major arterial
streets and in close proximity to Kierland Commons and the larger Scottsdale
Road corridor.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-PV-1-21-2 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and polices of the General Plan and will result in a land use designation that will
continue to support surrounding uses while maximizing the property’s location in a
transportation corridor.
Writer
David Simmons
September 28, 2021
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 316
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-PV-1-21-2 ACRES: 2.56 +/-
VILLAGE: Paradise Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: John H Berry, The Hampton Grou,p Inc
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
R D
Proposed Change Area
Industrial
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
SCOTTSDALE RD
71ST ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/Residential
15+ du/ac ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
Proposed Change Area R D
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park / Residential 15+ du/ac)
SCOTTSDALE RD
71ST ST
Page 317
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-PV-1-21-2_BW ACRES: 2.56 +/-
VILLAGE: Paradise Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: John H Berry, The Hampton Grou,p Inc
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
R D
Proposed Change Area
Industrial
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
E E E E E
SCOTTSDALE RD
E E E E E
71ST ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/Residential
15+ du/ac ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
R D
Proposed Change Area
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park / Residential 15+)
SCOTTSDALE RD
71ST ST
Page 318
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-21-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting April 5, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Map Designation
on approximately 2.56 acres located at the southwest
corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road from Industrial
to Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre)
Location Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-PV-1-21-2 and Z-12-21-2 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in opposition, wishing to speak.
Mr. Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided an
overview of the request to include background of how the area developed over
time, the General Plan Land Use Map designation of GPA request. Mr. Wood
elaborated on the high volume of traffic at the intersection of Bell Road and
Scottsdale Road and used this as an argument for the proposed height of the
building. Mr. Wood also went over conceptual site plans and elevations as well
as proposed parking and landscape standards. Further, Mr. Wood shared public
outreach efforts conducted to date.
Vice Chair Joe Lesher shared that he thinks the building has a nice design but
has a concern with the proposed height. He also thought that this is an awkward
location for high end residential adjacent to two major arterials.
Mr. Wood shared that there is nothing more constant than change. He
elaborated by sharing that the City of Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country
and will continue to grow up in height as the population grows due to the need for
more residential units in the area.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked if the proposed open space is all on the ground level.
Mr. Nick Wood shared that the proposed open space is located on the ground
level as well as on the roof deck.
Ms. Jennifer Hall shared that she too has concerns with the proposed height.
The building as depicted on the elevations are simply too tall for this area.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 319
Public Comment:
None (no show)
Applicants Response:
None
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 320
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 04, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Map Designation
on approximately 2.56 acres located at the southwest
corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road from Industrial
to Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park
/ Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre)
Location Located at the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 14-1 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Mortensen, Petersen, Popovic,
Severs, Sparks, Ward, Wise, Lesher and Gubser in
favor. Committee member Balderrama not in favor.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-PV-1-21-2 and Z-12-21-2 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in support, wishing to speak.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Desert
Ridge and Kierland Employment Center, Comprehensive Bicycle Master plan,
Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles, Zero Waste
Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix Plan. Mr.
Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed stipulations
for the case including Stipulation 1.e. recommending the building height be
limited to a maximum of 110 feet as there is no existing policy basis to support
the proposed height of 141 feet. However, since no adopted policy plan exists for
the Scottsdale Road corridor, the Village Planning Committee is more than able
to recommend what they feel is appropriate for this site. He shared that the site is
unique as it is located on the corner of two Major Arterials as well as transit
corridors, which could warrant more height.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked staff what the maximum height is.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 321
Mr. Simmons shared that the maximum heigh stipulated by staff is 110 feet,
however, the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 141 feet, exclusive of
root top amenity structures.
Ms. Diane Petersen shared that she has concerns with traffic patterns on the
private access drive (71st Street).
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, provided an in-depth and detailed presentation
on both cases concurrently. He stated that the existing commercial retail on this
site is closing and as a result, the property is selling. He shared that the
proposed project is an architectural marvel that will be highlighted as a “gem” of
the corridor, if approved as proposed by the applicant. He shared that corner
serves as a gateway to the Kierland area and Scottsdale Road corridor to the
south. He also highlighted that the improvements to the site would be a welcome
addition to the area, creating a pedestrian friendly environment and an
aesthetically pleasing entry gateway with pedestrian friendly lighting and an
above par garage wrap, mimicking commercial retail storer frontages.
Mr. Wood shared that the Scottsdale Airport employs more than 50, 000 people
currently and is growing to accommodate more than 70,000 workers in tech and
other high paying, professional industries. Housing is needed for this growth in
workforce and this proposal would fulfill the need for executive level housing
options in the area. He also highlighted that the proposal is located within a Major
Employment Center. This proposal would also fulfill the goals of alternative
housing option in a Major Employment Center. Mr. Wood elaborated on Centers
and Corridors outlined int eh City of Phoenix General Plan. Although no formal
Centers or Corridors have been adopted, the Kierland Area would constitute this,
but has yet to be formally established. The applicants proposed height would be
supported if this corridor was considered a formal Corridor. Mr. Wood also
shared graphics of what the roof top amenity areas would look like upon
completion. Further, Mr. Wood shared projected traffic counts and emphasized
that this proposal would not add any additional strain to traffic patterns in the
area, per CivTech’ s traffic analysis.
Mr. Wood proposed changes to two at staff’s recommended stipulations as
follows:
Stipulation No. 1.d. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of
141110 feet, inclusive EXCLUSIVE of non-dwelling space utilized for resident
amenities location on the roof deck.
Stipulation No. 1.e. Add the following development and design standards to the
development narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR
WITHIN 50 FEET OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell
Road, that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale and
the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section 1305.3.a.
in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 322
Lastly, Mr. Wood went over community outreach efforts and applauded the team
for mitigating all opposition prior to public hearings for recommendation.
Ms. Cindy DiMassa stated that there are currently no sidewalks along the
private access drive (71st St). If pedestrians do not have access to Bell Road and
Scottsdale road residents will have to walk on the private access drive, which will
put them in danger.
Mr. Wood shared that they are proposing exits for residents on the corners of the
building, which will provide direct access to tenants to both Bell road and
Scottsdale Road from eh building.
Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if the public outreach slide, reflecting all of the dots,
address building heights.
Mr. Wood shared that the graphic does not address building heights but is
directly related to a broad based policy document similar to a General Plan.
Mr. Alex Popovic gave kudos to the development team for mitigating all
opposition prior to coming before the hearing bodies for recommendation. He
shared that he is in full support of the proposal as presented by the applicant, to
include the proposed height of 141 feet.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked if the intersection at 71st Street and Bell was
safe for left hand turns wests bound on Bell.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, shared that the intersection is safe,
but not easy to maneuver during peak hours.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked staff why the proposed stipulation limiting the height to
110 feet.
Mr. Simmons shared that there is no current adopted policy plan in place that
would support the applicants proposed height at this time, but there are site
conditions that would warrant a height of 110 feet based on formulas used to
justify heights on recently approved projects using distance from single-family
residential as a justification.
Mr. Wood shared that the staff reports highlights that the Village Planning
Committee is open to make recommendations on height due to the lack of
existing policy plans int eh area. He defended the proposed height of 14q feet,
exclusive of root top amenity structures.
Ms. Gerst asked if the applicants proposed height was okay with the City of
Scottsdale Aviation Department.
Mr. Simmons shared that the City of Scottsdale Aviation Department did not
provide any recommended stipulations in regard to height for this proposal.
Mr. Roy Wise asked if 71st Street has access to Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Mr. Wood shared that access is exiting on both Major Arterials from the private
access drive (71st Street).
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 323
Mr. Paul Severs asked if this proposal was limited to 110 feet, as proposed by
staff, would it kill the project from moving forward.
Mr. Wood shared that the project would not make economic sense if it were to
be capped at 100 feet, therefore, it would kill the project.
Mr. Alan Sparks shared that he loves the building as proposed. He shared that
he lives in the neighborhood and has no objection to the applicants proposed
height. However, he shared that he is opposed to the project due to lack of
improvements on 71st Street. He stated that there are no proposed or existing
sidewalks on the private access drive. He shared that the street is too narrow
and is a small two way private street. He also shared that people illegally park
along the street, which blocks easy ingress and ingress through the area. He
also shared concerns about emergency responders being able to get through the
street when cars are illegally parked along it. He asked if the developer plans to
improve it or address the existing inadequate conditions.
Mr. Wood shared that CivTech determined that the private access drive was
indeed adequate and safe in regard to the number of units proposed. He shared
that this is outlined in the traffic analysis report generated by the traffic engineer.
Ms. Gerst asked if the number of units proposed was for the 110 feet or 141 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the 255 units were proposed at the height of 14 feet. If the
project is capped at 110 feet, the developer will walk away, and the project will
not come to fruition.
Ms. Gerst asked if it were a possibility to gate the private access way in an effort
to make the project a private community.
Mr. Wood shared that this was not a possibility as the public needs access
through the private access drive as well.
Chairman Robert Gubser shared that higher traffic generating uses line the
private access drive and the aces way functions just fine now.
Mr. Wood concurred.
Mr. Popovic asked what alternative exists for the site if this project dies not
come to fruition. He also shared concerns with illegal parking along the private
access way. He recommended having illegally parked cars towed to help to
mitigate this problem.
Ms. Diane Petersen asked if the developer would walk if the height were capped
at 110 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the developer would walk if the height were to be capped
at 110 feet.
Public Comment:
Mr. Bryan Jefferies spoke in support of the proposal. He shared that this use
would generate much lower traffic counts than a commercial use and provides
alternative housing options for executives working in the Scottsdale Airpark. He
also shared that he proposed heigh by the developer is a non-issue as the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 324
project is quite far away from single-family residential uses. He stated that the
project would not have a negative impact on existing residents.
Mr. Abram Bowman left the meeting around 8:00, bringing quorum down to 15.
Applicants Response:
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, proposed an alternative to the
perceived issues with the right hand turn onto Bell Road from the private access
drive. She recommended the committee propose an additional stipulation
requiring further discussion with the Streets department for the addition of a
refuge lane on Bell Road west bound.
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, stated that he would be happy to add this as a
stipulation. He shared that the applicant would have to ask permission for an
additional lane in the median from the Streets department.
Chairman Robert Gubser asked if there were any additional concerns about
71sst Street servicing this project.
Ms. Cartier replied, no.
Mr. Alan Sparks stated that he does have concerns with the existing conditions
on 71st Street.
Mr. Wood asked the committee to recommend approval subject to the two
stipulation modifications he proposed as well as the addition of two additional
stipulations discussed by the committee.
Chairman Gubser expressed his full support of the project as proposed by the
applicant.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher expressed concerns with the proposed height. He
shared that he had researched height in the area and the closets building with
similar heigh were located on the Scottsdale Waterfront in Old town Scottsdale.
He also shared that the new buildings along Tempe Town lake were comparable
in height. He shared that he is willing to support the staff recommendation of 110
feet maximum. He shared that he feels that the applicants proposed height does
not feel right for this area.
Ms. Cynthis DiMassa stated that towing the cars along the private access drive
would be a waste of time for the Phoenix Police Department.
Mr. Robert Goodhue stated that he has a couple of issues. He shared that is a
building were to have a height proposed by this applicant in this area, this site
would be the most appropriate. He also shared that the character of the area is
changing in this direction.
Ms. Gerst asked if it would be more palatable for the maximum building height to
be 141 feet inclusive of the roof top amenity structures.
Mr. Wood shared that the roof top amenity structures are in descript and cannot
be seen from the street level.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 325
Ms. Jennifer Hall stated that the committee does not have an adopted policy
basis for this area, even though it has been asked to be initiated in the recent
past. She stated that the applicant’s proposal of 141 feet is acceptable due to the
unique conditions on this specific site. She is also amazed that there is no public
opposition and applauded the applicant for mitigating all concerns prior to public
hearings.
MOTION:
Mr. Alex Popovic made a motion to recommend approval of General Plan
Amendment Case No. GPA-PV-1-21-2, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.
VOTE:
14-1 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst, Goodhue, Hall, Mazza,
Mortensen, Petersen, Popovic, Severs, Sparks, Ward, Wise, Lesher and Gubser
in favor. Committee member Balderrama not in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 326
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-PV-1-21-2 (Companion Case Z-12-21-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
From: Industrial
To: Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce/Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre)
Acreage: 2.56
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential and
commercial
Applicant: John H. Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc.
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 4/5/2021 Information only.
Paradise Valley 10/4/2021 Approval. Vote: 14-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve GPA-PV-1-21-2, per the
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Gaynor
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case, Z-12-21-2, proposes development that is consistent in
scale and character with land along the Scottsdale Road corridor.
2. The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre) land use designation will permit new zoning to be applied to the site
that maximizes opportunities within the Paradise Valley Village along two major
arterial streets with existing transit options.
Page 327
3. The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre) land use designation will establish compatible uses within a
designated Major Employment Center.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 328
Attachment F
David O Simmons
From: David Phelps
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 8:52 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village meeting
Hello David,
My name is David Phelps and I own the Breakfast Joynt at 64th street and bell and I would like to pledge my support for
the new high rise going in at Scottsdale rd and Bell. Let me know what I need to do
Thanks
Dave
Page 329
David O Simmons
From: farid samiei
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:40 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: The Hampton Group
Hello Mr. Simmons,
This is Farid Samiei. I am the manager at the Caspian Food Market which is located at 17040 N Scottsdale Road #108. I
just wanted to let you know that I won't be able to attend today's meeting at 6pm but I would support the Hampton Group,
INC.
Thank you,
Farid
Page 330
David O Simmons
From: Mike Redfern
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village Building
David,
On behalf of the Jackson’s company, I not only approve of the residential building on Scottsdale and Bell, I am very
excited about it.
Mike Redfern
District Manager
Jacksons Food Stores
(480) 881-5457
mike.redfern@jacksons.com
Page 331
David O Simmons
From: Pam Azin
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 6:29 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale & Bell rd project
Regarding the gateway to Kierland project, as owner of Sina East center at 17040 N. Scottsdale Rd and the businesses it
houses, I would just like to voice support for the new project.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 332
David O Simmons
From: Ryan O'Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:58 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale and Bell Luxury Development
Hello, My name is Ryan O ‘Daniel and I am a resident at 6418 East Claire Dr, Scottsdale 85254. I encourage the Village to
support this project. Many people do not want the hassle of owning a single family home. They like the lock and leave
lifestyle. This project with all its luxury amenities and desirable location, is perfect for many young business
professionals and also older adults looking to downsize.
Ryan O'Daniel
Principal
Intrepid Public Affairs
(602) 332-2039
Page 333
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous
of them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov”. When did the COP allow developers to use their email
address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the
project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zoning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Page 334
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
Page 335
David O Simmons
From: Wood, Nick
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:46 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren; Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: Re: Hampton Group Project
Good afternoon Mr. Warren.
My apologies, but I believe you are misconstruing the language referencing the “must” be approved.
If you read the remainder of the sentence, I believe that it clearly points out that this project may not go forward
without the approval the City Council. There’s nothing presumptuous about that statement, it is nothing more than a
statement of the legal requirements for this project to be developed.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the Optima Kierland project. Not only did I represent Optima with respect to that zoning
case, but I also live there.
As to your comments regarding infrastructure, while the existing infrastructure is more than adequate to handle the
development that will be heard tonight, in the event any developments requires additional infrastructure, the
developers required to install that additional infrastructure at it’s own cost and expense. For example, Optima was
required to upsize the sewer lines to serve buildings three and four.
Finally, sharing Mr. Simmon’s email address with everyone, is a courtesy, to assist you in sharing your thoughts with Mr.
Simmons, who is the village planner on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
In any event, I strongly encourage you to sign up and speak about your objections to this project tonight. Even though
you strongly oppose this project (and Optima), I believe that everyone’s voice should be heard.
Kind regards,
Nick
Nicholas J. Wood
Snell & Wilmer
400 East Van Buren Street
Phoenix, Arizona, 85004
Office: 602-382-6269
Cell: 602-451-2255
Fax: 602-382-6070
nwood@swlaw.com
Albuquerque, Boise, Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Cabos, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Reno, Salt
Lake City, San Diego, Seattle, Tucson, Washington DC The information contained in this electronic mail message is
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
Page 336
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at
602.382.6000, and delete the original message. Thank you.
On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:32 PM, David O Simmons wrote:
[EXTERNAL] david.simmons@phoenix.gov
________________________________
Mr. Warren,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-12-21-2 and GPA-PV-1-21-2. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
concerns.
The cases are scheduled to go to Village for a Formal Recommendation on October 4, 2021 (tonight).
Please register for the virtual meeting by clicking on the link on the attached agenda if you wish to attend.
I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
public hearing process.
The applicants Hearing Draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-caseszoning/pzservices/pud-cases>
The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2)
Lastly, staff formulates the first level of recommendation solely based on land use policy. The Village Planning
Committee formulates the second recommendation and the Planning Commission formulates a third recommendation.
given rezoning request.
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Page 337
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous of
them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov”. When did the COP
allow developers to use their email address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zo ning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
<100421a.pdf>
Page 338
David O Simmons
From: THOMAS STERN
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 2:54 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel; Moran, Taylor N.; Wood, Nick
Subject: Re: Scottsdale & Bell
[EXTERNAL] tstern007@aol.com
Hi David,
In doing more research about this project and the subject of possible “alleged” payments to the neighbors as I indicated
to you, I find that I am completely wrong about it and I am very sorry that I made the statement. It did not happen at all
or in any way that I believed. This is totally my fault for the way that I communicated about something that I was
passionate about.
If you have forwarded my comments to anyone, please let them know that I assumed something that just was not true.
Again, I am sorry for creating the confusion. I sincerely apologize to you, the Planning Committee, Nick Wood and his
client.
Regards,
Tom Stern
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 5, 2021, at 8:12 AM, David O Simmons wrote:
>
> Mr. Stern,
>
> Thank you for reaching out. The Scottsdale & Bell PUD case has not been scheduled for public hearings for formal
recommendation. However, The case will be heard for Information Only at the April 5, 2021 Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee meeting. If you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee virtual meeting,
please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at david.simmons@phoenix.gov at
least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Please indicate the item number on the agenda if you wish to speak.
>
> I have also cc’d the applicant in the event you have questions for them.
>
> I have attached the agenda for your reference.
>
> Staff will provide hearing dates for recommendation once the applicant submits a hearing draft of their development
narrative. Once the hearing dates have been set and if you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee virtual meeting, please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at
david.simmons@phoenix.gov at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Staff will make every effort to
accommodate requests to speak submitted beyond the 48 hour period. Due to the added demands of facilitating the
virtual environment for the public, applicants and other staff members, we cannot consider any request less than six
business hours before the start of the meeting.
>
> I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
Page 339
public hearing process.
>
> The applicants 1st review development narrative is available for review on the City’s website:
> https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-case
>
> The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2).
>
> Please let me know if you have additional comments or concerns.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> David Simmons, MA
> Planner II* Village Planner
> 200 West Washington Street
> 3rd Floor
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> 602-262-4072
> david.simmons@phoenix.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: THOMAS STERN
> Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 2:52 PM
> To: David O Simmons
> Subject: Scottsdale & Bell
>
> Hi David,
>
> Re: GPA-PV-1-21-2
> Z-12-21-2
>
> We understand that this project will be presented to Planning Committee by Nick Wood on Monday night on behalf of
Hampton Group. We were told that this application is for informational purposes and is not in final design form.
>
> Please be aware that Landmark Condominium Association 15802 N 71st Street will vehemently object to this project in
its present form. We object to height, density, setbacks, traffic flow and proximity violation.
>
> We are also aware that the current owners have “ALLEGEDLY” offered payments to the immediate neighbors (CVS, the
Jackson’s Car Wash and the Chevron Gas Station) if they do not object to the project. We understand that this is a
common occurrence, but if true, we want it disclosed to Planning Committee.
>
> Finally, Kierland Community Alliance (KCA) also objects to this project in its present form.
>
> For the record, KCA and Landmark met with Nick Wood, Noel Griemsmann and Hampton last Tuesday. We told them
that we would support tasteful development on the site. Hampton did not appear willing to work with us.
>
> I will provide you with more information when we know what their final submission is.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Stern
>
> Sent from my iPad
Page 340
Report
21-2 - Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road (Resolution 21980)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
Resolution if approved. This file is a companion case to Z-12-21-2 and should be
heard first, followed by Z-12-21-2.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Industrial
Proposed Plan Designation: Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce/Business Park /
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre)
Acreage: 2.56 acres
Reason for change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential
and commercial
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Applicant: John H. Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc.
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Info: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Apr. 5,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Oct.
4, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a 14-1 vote.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee, by a 7-0
vote.
Location
Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 16630 and 16640 E. Scottsdale Road.
Page 309
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 310
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-PV-1-21-2, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan which was adopted by
Resolution No. 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-PV-1-21-2, 2.56 acres
located on the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road, for Mixed Use
(Commercial / Commerce/Business Park / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre), as
approved by the City Council on December 1, 2021 and that the Planning and
Development Director is instructed to modify The 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect
this land use classification change as shown below:
Page 311
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 312
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 28, 2021
Application: GPA-PV-1-21-2
Applicant: John H Berry, The Hampton Group
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
Acreage: 2.56 acres
Current Plan Designation: Industrial (2.56 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business
Park / Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre) (2.56
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential and commercial uses.
Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee Date: October 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case, Z-12-21-2, proposes development that is
consistent in scale and character with land along the Scottsdale Road corridor.
2) The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre) land use designation will permit new zoning to be applied
to the site that maximizes opportunities within the Paradise Valley Village along
two major arterial streets with existing transit options.
Page 313
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Page 2
3) The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre) land use designation will establish compatible uses within
a designated Major Employment Center.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at
the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road. The site is occupied by
a single-story commercial
building, and surface parking
areas. The current building is
partially vacant. The
companion Rezoning Case
No. Z-12-21-2 is a request to
allow PUD zoning for
multifamily residential and
commercial uses on the
entirety of the site.
Currently the site has a land
use map designation of
Industrial. The requested land
use map designation Mixed use Aerial Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
(Commercial / Commerce / Development Department
Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre) will allow for alternative housing choices in the area as well as
nonresidential uses and to provide consistency with the Kierland corridor. Recent
development suggests the Scottsdale Road corridor is evolving to a mixture of housing
choices and commercial uses. The proposed land use map change will serve as a
continuation of the proposed land use designations to the south of the subject site.
This General Plan Amendment proposes a Mixed Use land use map designation of
Commercial / Commerce Park / Residential 15+ dwelling unit per acre. This Mixed Use
designation will allow commercial, commerce park and residential land uses to locate on
the site. Maps of the existing and proposed General Plan Land Use Map designations
can be found attached to this report.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
There is one existing commercial building on the southwest quadrant of the site. The
table below provides a summary of the surrounding General Plan (GP) Land Use Map
Page 314
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Page 3
designations, existing land uses and zoning.
Location GP Land Use Existing Land Uses Zoning
North Parks/Open Space – Canal and Hotel R1-14 and C-2
(across Publicly Owned
Bell Road)
South Industrial Convenience store C-2
East Mixed Use Commercial Planned
(across Neighborhoods/Regional office/shopping center Regional Center
Scottsdale Use District (PRC) (City of
Road) Scottsdale)
West Industrial Retail C-2
Surrounding Land Use Designations, Land Use and Zoning
The site falls within the boundaries of the
Maricopa Association of Governments
designated Desert Ridge/Kierland major
employment center and City of Phoenix
designated employment center. Providing
additional housing options in close
proximity to the nearby workforce will add
to the sustainability of established office
space and commercial uses built around
the Desert Ridge/Kierland Major
Employment Center.
Major Employment Center Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PPRINCIPLES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUEOPPORTUNITY SITES;
OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage
compatible development and redevelopment with a mix of housing types in
neighborhoods close to employment centers, commercial areas, and where
transit or transportation alternatives exist.
Page 315
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Page 4
The proposed request supports the proposed development that is compatible in
scale and intensity with the surrounding area. The development is located in a
mixed-use corridor where adjacent properties are residential or commercial. The
site also sits on the corner of two Major Arterials. The concentration of people
within an Employment center and near employment uses and transportation
corridors promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses. Further, the
opportunity to add additional housing choices is consistent with the goals of the
Housing Phoenix Plan.
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; 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 land use map amendment would facilitate the opportunity for
additional residential and commercial development adjacent to existing transit
lines and within a corridor that has supported additional height and intensity.
• 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 request facilitates additional residential options adjacent to major arterial
streets and in close proximity to Kierland Commons and the larger Scottsdale
Road corridor.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-PV-1-21-2 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and polices of the General Plan and will result in a land use designation that will
continue to support surrounding uses while maximizing the property’s location in a
transportation corridor.
Writer
David Simmons
September 28, 2021
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 316
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-PV-1-21-2 ACRES: 2.56 +/-
VILLAGE: Paradise Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: John H Berry, The Hampton Grou,p Inc
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
R D
Proposed Change Area
Industrial
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
SCOTTSDALE RD
71ST ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/Residential
15+ du/ac ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
Proposed Change Area R D
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park / Residential 15+ du/ac)
SCOTTSDALE RD
71ST ST
Page 317
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-PV-1-21-2_BW ACRES: 2.56 +/-
VILLAGE: Paradise Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: John H Berry, The Hampton Grou,p Inc
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
R D
Proposed Change Area
Industrial
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
E E E E E
SCOTTSDALE RD
E E E E E
71ST ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/Residential
15+ du/ac ( 2.56 +/- Acres)
BELL
R D
Proposed Change Area
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park / Residential 15+)
SCOTTSDALE RD
71ST ST
Page 318
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-21-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting April 5, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Map Designation
on approximately 2.56 acres located at the southwest
corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road from Industrial
to Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre)
Location Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-PV-1-21-2 and Z-12-21-2 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in opposition, wishing to speak.
Mr. Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided an
overview of the request to include background of how the area developed over
time, the General Plan Land Use Map designation of GPA request. Mr. Wood
elaborated on the high volume of traffic at the intersection of Bell Road and
Scottsdale Road and used this as an argument for the proposed height of the
building. Mr. Wood also went over conceptual site plans and elevations as well
as proposed parking and landscape standards. Further, Mr. Wood shared public
outreach efforts conducted to date.
Vice Chair Joe Lesher shared that he thinks the building has a nice design but
has a concern with the proposed height. He also thought that this is an awkward
location for high end residential adjacent to two major arterials.
Mr. Wood shared that there is nothing more constant than change. He
elaborated by sharing that the City of Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country
and will continue to grow up in height as the population grows due to the need for
more residential units in the area.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked if the proposed open space is all on the ground level.
Mr. Nick Wood shared that the proposed open space is located on the ground
level as well as on the roof deck.
Ms. Jennifer Hall shared that she too has concerns with the proposed height.
The building as depicted on the elevations are simply too tall for this area.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 319
Public Comment:
None (no show)
Applicants Response:
None
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 320
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-21-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 04, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Map Designation
on approximately 2.56 acres located at the southwest
corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road from Industrial
to Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park
/ Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre)
Location Located at the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 14-1 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Mortensen, Petersen, Popovic,
Severs, Sparks, Ward, Wise, Lesher and Gubser in
favor. Committee member Balderrama not in favor.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-PV-1-21-2 and Z-12-21-2 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in support, wishing to speak.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Desert
Ridge and Kierland Employment Center, Comprehensive Bicycle Master plan,
Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles, Zero Waste
Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix Plan. Mr.
Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed stipulations
for the case including Stipulation 1.e. recommending the building height be
limited to a maximum of 110 feet as there is no existing policy basis to support
the proposed height of 141 feet. However, since no adopted policy plan exists for
the Scottsdale Road corridor, the Village Planning Committee is more than able
to recommend what they feel is appropriate for this site. He shared that the site is
unique as it is located on the corner of two Major Arterials as well as transit
corridors, which could warrant more height.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked staff what the maximum height is.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 321
Mr. Simmons shared that the maximum heigh stipulated by staff is 110 feet,
however, the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 141 feet, exclusive of
root top amenity structures.
Ms. Diane Petersen shared that she has concerns with traffic patterns on the
private access drive (71st Street).
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, provided an in-depth and detailed presentation
on both cases concurrently. He stated that the existing commercial retail on this
site is closing and as a result, the property is selling. He shared that the
proposed project is an architectural marvel that will be highlighted as a “gem” of
the corridor, if approved as proposed by the applicant. He shared that corner
serves as a gateway to the Kierland area and Scottsdale Road corridor to the
south. He also highlighted that the improvements to the site would be a welcome
addition to the area, creating a pedestrian friendly environment and an
aesthetically pleasing entry gateway with pedestrian friendly lighting and an
above par garage wrap, mimicking commercial retail storer frontages.
Mr. Wood shared that the Scottsdale Airport employs more than 50, 000 people
currently and is growing to accommodate more than 70,000 workers in tech and
other high paying, professional industries. Housing is needed for this growth in
workforce and this proposal would fulfill the need for executive level housing
options in the area. He also highlighted that the proposal is located within a Major
Employment Center. This proposal would also fulfill the goals of alternative
housing option in a Major Employment Center. Mr. Wood elaborated on Centers
and Corridors outlined int eh City of Phoenix General Plan. Although no formal
Centers or Corridors have been adopted, the Kierland Area would constitute this,
but has yet to be formally established. The applicants proposed height would be
supported if this corridor was considered a formal Corridor. Mr. Wood also
shared graphics of what the roof top amenity areas would look like upon
completion. Further, Mr. Wood shared projected traffic counts and emphasized
that this proposal would not add any additional strain to traffic patterns in the
area, per CivTech’ s traffic analysis.
Mr. Wood proposed changes to two at staff’s recommended stipulations as
follows:
Stipulation No. 1.d. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of
141110 feet, inclusive EXCLUSIVE of non-dwelling space utilized for resident
amenities location on the roof deck.
Stipulation No. 1.e. Add the following development and design standards to the
development narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR
WITHIN 50 FEET OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell
Road, that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale and
the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section 1305.3.a.
in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 322
Lastly, Mr. Wood went over community outreach efforts and applauded the team
for mitigating all opposition prior to public hearings for recommendation.
Ms. Cindy DiMassa stated that there are currently no sidewalks along the
private access drive (71st St). If pedestrians do not have access to Bell Road and
Scottsdale road residents will have to walk on the private access drive, which will
put them in danger.
Mr. Wood shared that they are proposing exits for residents on the corners of the
building, which will provide direct access to tenants to both Bell road and
Scottsdale Road from eh building.
Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if the public outreach slide, reflecting all of the dots,
address building heights.
Mr. Wood shared that the graphic does not address building heights but is
directly related to a broad based policy document similar to a General Plan.
Mr. Alex Popovic gave kudos to the development team for mitigating all
opposition prior to coming before the hearing bodies for recommendation. He
shared that he is in full support of the proposal as presented by the applicant, to
include the proposed height of 141 feet.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked if the intersection at 71st Street and Bell was
safe for left hand turns wests bound on Bell.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, shared that the intersection is safe,
but not easy to maneuver during peak hours.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked staff why the proposed stipulation limiting the height to
110 feet.
Mr. Simmons shared that there is no current adopted policy plan in place that
would support the applicants proposed height at this time, but there are site
conditions that would warrant a height of 110 feet based on formulas used to
justify heights on recently approved projects using distance from single-family
residential as a justification.
Mr. Wood shared that the staff reports highlights that the Village Planning
Committee is open to make recommendations on height due to the lack of
existing policy plans int eh area. He defended the proposed height of 14q feet,
exclusive of root top amenity structures.
Ms. Gerst asked if the applicants proposed height was okay with the City of
Scottsdale Aviation Department.
Mr. Simmons shared that the City of Scottsdale Aviation Department did not
provide any recommended stipulations in regard to height for this proposal.
Mr. Roy Wise asked if 71st Street has access to Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Mr. Wood shared that access is exiting on both Major Arterials from the private
access drive (71st Street).
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 323
Mr. Paul Severs asked if this proposal was limited to 110 feet, as proposed by
staff, would it kill the project from moving forward.
Mr. Wood shared that the project would not make economic sense if it were to
be capped at 100 feet, therefore, it would kill the project.
Mr. Alan Sparks shared that he loves the building as proposed. He shared that
he lives in the neighborhood and has no objection to the applicants proposed
height. However, he shared that he is opposed to the project due to lack of
improvements on 71st Street. He stated that there are no proposed or existing
sidewalks on the private access drive. He shared that the street is too narrow
and is a small two way private street. He also shared that people illegally park
along the street, which blocks easy ingress and ingress through the area. He
also shared concerns about emergency responders being able to get through the
street when cars are illegally parked along it. He asked if the developer plans to
improve it or address the existing inadequate conditions.
Mr. Wood shared that CivTech determined that the private access drive was
indeed adequate and safe in regard to the number of units proposed. He shared
that this is outlined in the traffic analysis report generated by the traffic engineer.
Ms. Gerst asked if the number of units proposed was for the 110 feet or 141 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the 255 units were proposed at the height of 14 feet. If the
project is capped at 110 feet, the developer will walk away, and the project will
not come to fruition.
Ms. Gerst asked if it were a possibility to gate the private access way in an effort
to make the project a private community.
Mr. Wood shared that this was not a possibility as the public needs access
through the private access drive as well.
Chairman Robert Gubser shared that higher traffic generating uses line the
private access drive and the aces way functions just fine now.
Mr. Wood concurred.
Mr. Popovic asked what alternative exists for the site if this project dies not
come to fruition. He also shared concerns with illegal parking along the private
access way. He recommended having illegally parked cars towed to help to
mitigate this problem.
Ms. Diane Petersen asked if the developer would walk if the height were capped
at 110 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the developer would walk if the height were to be capped
at 110 feet.
Public Comment:
Mr. Bryan Jefferies spoke in support of the proposal. He shared that this use
would generate much lower traffic counts than a commercial use and provides
alternative housing options for executives working in the Scottsdale Airpark. He
also shared that he proposed heigh by the developer is a non-issue as the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 324
project is quite far away from single-family residential uses. He stated that the
project would not have a negative impact on existing residents.
Mr. Abram Bowman left the meeting around 8:00, bringing quorum down to 15.
Applicants Response:
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, proposed an alternative to the
perceived issues with the right hand turn onto Bell Road from the private access
drive. She recommended the committee propose an additional stipulation
requiring further discussion with the Streets department for the addition of a
refuge lane on Bell Road west bound.
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, stated that he would be happy to add this as a
stipulation. He shared that the applicant would have to ask permission for an
additional lane in the median from the Streets department.
Chairman Robert Gubser asked if there were any additional concerns about
71sst Street servicing this project.
Ms. Cartier replied, no.
Mr. Alan Sparks stated that he does have concerns with the existing conditions
on 71st Street.
Mr. Wood asked the committee to recommend approval subject to the two
stipulation modifications he proposed as well as the addition of two additional
stipulations discussed by the committee.
Chairman Gubser expressed his full support of the project as proposed by the
applicant.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher expressed concerns with the proposed height. He
shared that he had researched height in the area and the closets building with
similar heigh were located on the Scottsdale Waterfront in Old town Scottsdale.
He also shared that the new buildings along Tempe Town lake were comparable
in height. He shared that he is willing to support the staff recommendation of 110
feet maximum. He shared that he feels that the applicants proposed height does
not feel right for this area.
Ms. Cynthis DiMassa stated that towing the cars along the private access drive
would be a waste of time for the Phoenix Police Department.
Mr. Robert Goodhue stated that he has a couple of issues. He shared that is a
building were to have a height proposed by this applicant in this area, this site
would be the most appropriate. He also shared that the character of the area is
changing in this direction.
Ms. Gerst asked if it would be more palatable for the maximum building height to
be 141 feet inclusive of the roof top amenity structures.
Mr. Wood shared that the roof top amenity structures are in descript and cannot
be seen from the street level.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 325
Ms. Jennifer Hall stated that the committee does not have an adopted policy
basis for this area, even though it has been asked to be initiated in the recent
past. She stated that the applicant’s proposal of 141 feet is acceptable due to the
unique conditions on this specific site. She is also amazed that there is no public
opposition and applauded the applicant for mitigating all concerns prior to public
hearings.
MOTION:
Mr. Alex Popovic made a motion to recommend approval of General Plan
Amendment Case No. GPA-PV-1-21-2, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.
VOTE:
14-1 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst, Goodhue, Hall, Mazza,
Mortensen, Petersen, Popovic, Severs, Sparks, Ward, Wise, Lesher and Gubser
in favor. Committee member Balderrama not in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 326
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-PV-1-21-2 (Companion Case Z-12-21-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
From: Industrial
To: Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce/Business Park / Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre)
Acreage: 2.56
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential and
commercial
Applicant: John H. Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc.
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 4/5/2021 Information only.
Paradise Valley 10/4/2021 Approval. Vote: 14-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve GPA-PV-1-21-2, per the
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Gaynor
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case, Z-12-21-2, proposes development that is consistent in
scale and character with land along the Scottsdale Road corridor.
2. The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre) land use designation will permit new zoning to be applied to the site
that maximizes opportunities within the Paradise Valley Village along two major
arterial streets with existing transit options.
Page 327
3. The Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce / Business Park / Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre) land use designation will establish compatible uses within a
designated Major Employment Center.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 328
Attachment F
David O Simmons
From: David Phelps
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 8:52 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village meeting
Hello David,
My name is David Phelps and I own the Breakfast Joynt at 64th street and bell and I would like to pledge my support for
the new high rise going in at Scottsdale rd and Bell. Let me know what I need to do
Thanks
Dave
Page 329
David O Simmons
From: farid samiei
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:40 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: The Hampton Group
Hello Mr. Simmons,
This is Farid Samiei. I am the manager at the Caspian Food Market which is located at 17040 N Scottsdale Road #108. I
just wanted to let you know that I won't be able to attend today's meeting at 6pm but I would support the Hampton Group,
INC.
Thank you,
Farid
Page 330
David O Simmons
From: Mike Redfern
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village Building
David,
On behalf of the Jackson’s company, I not only approve of the residential building on Scottsdale and Bell, I am very
excited about it.
Mike Redfern
District Manager
Jacksons Food Stores
(480) 881-5457
mike.redfern@jacksons.com
Page 331
David O Simmons
From: Pam Azin
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 6:29 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale & Bell rd project
Regarding the gateway to Kierland project, as owner of Sina East center at 17040 N. Scottsdale Rd and the businesses it
houses, I would just like to voice support for the new project.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 332
David O Simmons
From: Ryan O'Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:58 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale and Bell Luxury Development
Hello, My name is Ryan O ‘Daniel and I am a resident at 6418 East Claire Dr, Scottsdale 85254. I encourage the Village to
support this project. Many people do not want the hassle of owning a single family home. They like the lock and leave
lifestyle. This project with all its luxury amenities and desirable location, is perfect for many young business
professionals and also older adults looking to downsize.
Ryan O'Daniel
Principal
Intrepid Public Affairs
(602) 332-2039
Page 333
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous
of them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov”. When did the COP allow developers to use their email
address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the
project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zoning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Page 334
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
Page 335
David O Simmons
From: Wood, Nick
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:46 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren; Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: Re: Hampton Group Project
Good afternoon Mr. Warren.
My apologies, but I believe you are misconstruing the language referencing the “must” be approved.
If you read the remainder of the sentence, I believe that it clearly points out that this project may not go forward
without the approval the City Council. There’s nothing presumptuous about that statement, it is nothing more than a
statement of the legal requirements for this project to be developed.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the Optima Kierland project. Not only did I represent Optima with respect to that zoning
case, but I also live there.
As to your comments regarding infrastructure, while the existing infrastructure is more than adequate to handle the
development that will be heard tonight, in the event any developments requires additional infrastructure, the
developers required to install that additional infrastructure at it’s own cost and expense. For example, Optima was
required to upsize the sewer lines to serve buildings three and four.
Finally, sharing Mr. Simmon’s email address with everyone, is a courtesy, to assist you in sharing your thoughts with Mr.
Simmons, who is the village planner on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
In any event, I strongly encourage you to sign up and speak about your objections to this project tonight. Even though
you strongly oppose this project (and Optima), I believe that everyone’s voice should be heard.
Kind regards,
Nick
Nicholas J. Wood
Snell & Wilmer
400 East Van Buren Street
Phoenix, Arizona, 85004
Office: 602-382-6269
Cell: 602-451-2255
Fax: 602-382-6070
nwood@swlaw.com
Albuquerque, Boise, Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Cabos, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Reno, Salt
Lake City, San Diego, Seattle, Tucson, Washington DC The information contained in this electronic mail message is
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
Page 336
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at
602.382.6000, and delete the original message. Thank you.
On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:32 PM, David O Simmons
[EXTERNAL] david.simmons@phoenix.gov
________________________________
Mr. Warren,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-12-21-2 and GPA-PV-1-21-2. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
concerns.
The cases are scheduled to go to Village for a Formal Recommendation on October 4, 2021 (tonight).
Please register for the virtual meeting by clicking on the link on the attached agenda if you wish to attend.
I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
public hearing process.
The applicants Hearing Draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2)
Lastly, staff formulates the first level of recommendation solely based on land use policy. The Village Planning
Committee formulates the second recommendation and the Planning Commission formulates a third recommendation.
given rezoning request.
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Page 337
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous of
them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov
allow developers to use their email address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zo ning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
<100421a.pdf>
Page 338
David O Simmons
From: THOMAS STERN
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 2:54 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel; Moran, Taylor N.; Wood, Nick
Subject: Re: Scottsdale & Bell
[EXTERNAL] tstern007@aol.com
Hi David,
In doing more research about this project and the subject of possible “alleged” payments to the neighbors as I indicated
to you, I find that I am completely wrong about it and I am very sorry that I made the statement. It did not happen at all
or in any way that I believed. This is totally my fault for the way that I communicated about something that I was
passionate about.
If you have forwarded my comments to anyone, please let them know that I assumed something that just was not true.
Again, I am sorry for creating the confusion. I sincerely apologize to you, the Planning Committee, Nick Wood and his
client.
Regards,
Tom Stern
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 5, 2021, at 8:12 AM, David O Simmons
>
> Mr. Stern,
>
> Thank you for reaching out. The Scottsdale & Bell PUD case has not been scheduled for public hearings for formal
recommendation. However, The case will be heard for Information Only at the April 5, 2021 Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee meeting. If you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee virtual meeting,
please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at david.simmons@phoenix.gov at
least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Please indicate the item number on the agenda if you wish to speak.
>
> I have also cc’d the applicant in the event you have questions for them.
>
> I have attached the agenda for your reference.
>
> Staff will provide hearing dates for recommendation once the applicant submits a hearing draft of their development
narrative. Once the hearing dates have been set and if you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee virtual meeting, please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at
david.simmons@phoenix.gov at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Staff will make every effort to
accommodate requests to speak submitted beyond the 48 hour period. Due to the added demands of facilitating the
virtual environment for the public, applicants and other staff members, we cannot consider any request less than six
business hours before the start of the meeting.
>
> I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
Page 339
public hearing process.
>
> The applicants 1st review development narrative is available for review on the City’s website:
> https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-case
>
> The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2).
>
> Please let me know if you have additional comments or concerns.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> David Simmons, MA
> Planner II* Village Planner
> 200 West Washington Street
> 3rd Floor
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> 602-262-4072
> david.simmons@phoenix.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: THOMAS STERN
> Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 2:52 PM
> To: David O Simmons
> Subject: Scottsdale & Bell
>
> Hi David,
>
> Re: GPA-PV-1-21-2
> Z-12-21-2
>
> We understand that this project will be presented to Planning Committee by Nick Wood on Monday night on behalf of
Hampton Group. We were told that this application is for informational purposes and is not in final design form.
>
> Please be aware that Landmark Condominium Association 15802 N 71st Street will vehemently object to this project in
its present form. We object to height, density, setbacks, traffic flow and proximity violation.
>
> We are also aware that the current owners have “ALLEGEDLY” offered payments to the immediate neighbors (CVS, the
Jackson’s Car Wash and the Chevron Gas Station) if they do not object to the project. We understand that this is a
common occurrence, but if true, we want it disclosed to Planning Committee.
>
> Finally, Kierland Community Alliance (KCA) also objects to this project in its present form.
>
> For the record, KCA and Landmark met with Nick Wood, Noel Griemsmann and Hampton last Tuesday. We told them
that we would support tasteful development on the site. Hampton did not appear willing to work with us.
>
> I will provide you with more information when we know what their final submission is.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Stern
>
> Sent from my iPad
Page 340
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-12-21-2
(Scottsdale & Bell Road PUD) - Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road (Ordinance G-6929)
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-12-21-2 and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily and commercial uses. This is a
companion case and should be heard following GPA-PV-1-21-2.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.56 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential and commercial uses.
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Applicant: John H. Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc.
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Apr. 5,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Oct.
4, 2021 and recommended approval with modifications and additional stipulations, by
a vote of 11-4.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional and deleted stipulation, by a vote of 6-1.
Location
Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 16630 and 16640 N. Scottsdale Road.
Page 341
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 342
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-12-21-2) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.56-acre site located on the southwest
corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road in a portion of Section 3, Township 3 North,
Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “C-
2” (Intermediate Commercial District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development 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 343
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 Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the
final narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on or within 50 feet
of Scottsdale Road and one on or within 50 feet of Bell Road, that
directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented
scale and the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per
Section 1305.3.a. in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
d. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use
Map as an exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations,
siting the companion GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70 feet of right-of-way for the south half
of Bell Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
had been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements
Page 344
and right-of-way dedications may be required as identified in the approved
traffic study. Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with
these improvements and dedications.
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final
site plan approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and
that the development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If
temporary equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the
permanent structure a separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA
and a “No Hazard Determination” obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. The developer shall collaborate with the Street Transportation Department to
review the potential for a refuge lane in the median west bound on Bell Road at
71st Street.
9. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
Page 345
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 346
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-12-21-2
PARCEL "C", AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT OF PRINCESS CROSSING,
RECORDED IN BOOK 445 OF MAPS, PAGE 18 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING WITHIN THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
The above described parcel contains 2.56 acres.
Page 347
Page 348
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-12-21-2
Scottsdale and Bell PUD
September 30, 2021
Paradise Valley Village Planning October 4, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 4, 2021
Request From: C-2 (2.56 acres)
Request To: PUD (2.56 acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Unit Development to allow
multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road
Owners: Bell 166, LLC
Applicant: John H Berry, The Hampton Group
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Industrial
Proposed (GPA-PV-1-21-2): Mixed Use
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
(Commercial/Commerce/Business
Park/Residential 15+ dwelling units per
acre)
Major
Scottsdale Road 65 and 68-foot west half street
Arterial
Street Map Major
Bell Road 67-foot south half street
Classification Arterial
Private
71st Street 30-foot street
Street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES GOAL;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to employment
centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation alternatives exist.
Page 349
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
The proposed Scottsdale and Bell Planned Unit Development (PUD) supports increased
intensity by proposing multifamily residential that is compatible in scale and intensity with
the surrounding Scottsdale Road corridor. The development is located in a mixed-use
corridor where nearby properties are multifamily or commercial. The project site is also
within a designated employment center. The concentration of people near employment
uses promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses. The requested PUD will
facilitate ongoing investment and development of the greater Kierland area and
Scottsdale Road corridor.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPILE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The Scottsdale and Bell PUD proposes landscaping around all four sides of the building.
Detached sidewalks along Scottsdale Road and Bell Road framed with landscape strips
will provide thermal comfort for pedestrians. The PUD also requires that a minimum of 75
percent of public pedestrian pathways be shaded.
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should be designed to included convenient bicycle parking.
The proposed development will provide bicycle parking for both residents and guests.
The project also is in close proximity to a multi-use trail along the CAP Canal, along the
north side of Bell Road, and will support residents who prefer using alternative modes of
transportation to get to work or nearby entertainment.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Desert Ridge and Kierland Employment
Center – See background item No. 5 below.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See background item No. 8
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See background item No. 9
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See background item No. 10
Zero Waste PHX – See background item No. 11
Housing Phoenix Plan – See background item No. 12
Page 350
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Commercial Retail C-2
South Convenient Store C-2
North (across R1-14 and C-2
Hotel
Bell Road)
East (across Planned Regional Center (PRC) (City
Commercial Office/Shopping
Scottsdale of Scottsdale)
Center
Road)
West Commercial Retail C-2
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 2.56-acre site located on the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. The request is to rezone from C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses.
2. The subject site consists of one parcel that is under the ownership of Bell 166, LLC.
The site currently contains one one-story commercial retail building with surface
parking. The subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix on October 15, 1961. At
that time the subject site and the surrounding area vastly consisted of vacant land. The
current C-2 zoning designation was established through Annexation No. G-438.
Maricopa County Historical Aerials indicate that the subject site began to develop in
approximately 1996. The surrounding sites began to develop in approximately 1998.
The proposed PUD will require the developer to provide updated infrastructure as
needed and determined through the Planning and Development Department’s site
development process.
Historic Aerials, Source: Maricopa County Assessor’s Office
Page 351
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Industrial. The
proposal is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation but is
consistent with current land uses in the area. A companion General Plan Amendment
request (GPA-PV-1-21-2) proposes a Mixed Use land use designation of
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park/Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre). This
Mixed Use designation will allow flexibility for residential and commercial land uses to
locate on any portion of the site in compliance with the PUD’s development standards.
The General Plan Land Use Map designation on three sides of the subject parcel is
also Industrial. To the north, across Bell Road, the General Plan Land Use Map
designation is Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned. To the east, across Scottsdale
Road, is the City of Scottsdale. The City of Scottsdale’s General Plan Land Use Map
designation is Mixed Use Neighborhoods/Regional Use District.
General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
Page 352
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES
4. North
The property to the north of the subject site, across Bell Road is the CAP Canal,
zoned R1-14. Beyond the CAP Canal to the north is a hotel zoned C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) approved through Rezoning Case No. Z-60-1996.
South
Directly south of the subject site is a one-story gas station/convenience store zoned
C-2 through Annexation No. G-438.
East
Directly to the east, across Scottsdale Road, sits the Frank Lloyd Wright spire on the
hard corner and a four story commercial mixed use building containing commercial
offices and a restaurant space, all of which are located within the City of Scottsdale
municipal
boundary.
West
West of the
subject site is a
one-story
commercial retail
building zoned C-
2 (Intermediate
Commercial),
approved through
Annexation No. G-
438.
Surrounding Zoning, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 353
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
5. The subject site falls within the boundaries of
the Maricopa Association of Governments
designated Desert Ridge/Kierland major
employment center and City of Phoenix
designated employment center.
A mix of housing types
are encouraged in employment
centers and commercial corridors.
The Desert Ridge/Kierland
employment center profile provided by the
Development Department identifies that the
Kierland area is comprised of a highly
educated, executive, and professional
workforce with a large inventory of Class A
office space. Providing additional Employment Center Map, Source: City of Phoenix
residential options in close proximity to Planning and Development Department
the nearby office spaces will add to the
sustainability of the established employment center and the Kierland area overall.
PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation. The 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 writes a document proposing standards and guidelines that are
tailored to the context of a site on a case by case basis.
Where the Scottsdale and Bell PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement,
the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions shall be applied.
7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described in the
attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped September 14, 2021. The
proposed standards were designed to allow for a multifamily development that
continues enhancement along the Scottsdale Road and Bell Road intersection for a
more pedestrian-friendly environment.
List of Uses
The Development Narrative proposes a number of permitted uses. The proposed uses
consist of the permitted C-2 zoning uses found in Sections 623 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, with some prohibited uses. Additionally, multifamily residential is permitted
with a maximum of 255 residential dwelling units.
Page 354
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
The Development Narrative also proposes restricting certain uses that are inconsistent
with the Narrative's vision of mixed-use pedestrian oriented development.
Conceptual Site Plan
The development’s main access points are along Bell Road and the private drive
bordering the eastern boundary of the subject site, 71st Street. The project proposes a
141-foot tall multifamily building with a pedestal parking garage and roof deck. The
parking structure shall be screened with architectural embellishments consistent with
the primary façade. There are three amenity areas proposed and are reserved as
private common open space. One is located on the podium deck; one is located in the
outdoor courtyard near the building main entrance and the other is located on the roof
deck. Bell Road and Scottsdale Road will contain enhanced streetscapes with a
minimum eight-foot detached sidewalk framed by landscape areas that will include
trees, shrubs, and live ground cover.
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: The Hampton Group
Page 355
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Development Standards
The follow is a table of proposed development standards for the project.
a. Maximum Residential Unit
Count: Maximum Dwellings 255 dwelling units
Maximum Density 99.61 dwelling units per gross acre
b. Minimum Lot Width/Depth No Minimum
c. Minimum Building Setbacks From Property Line
North (Bell Road) 23 feet
West (Internal Property Line) 5 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 3 feet, 17-foot average
East (Scottsdale Road) 9 feet, 22-feet average
d. Minimum Landscape
Setbacks
North (Bell Road) 20 feet
West (71st Street) 5 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 0 feet
East (Scottsdale Road) 7 feet, 15-foot average
e. Maximum Building Height 141 feet, 159 feet for rooftop amenities (limited
to 40% of the total roof area)
f. Maximum Lot Coverage 65 percent of Total Net Site Area
g. Open Space Minimum 40 percent of net site area
The proposed maximum height of the project is 141 feet, 159 feet for rooftop amenities
(limited to 40% of the total roof area). The site is located along two major arterials and
transportation routes. The site is also located more than 185 feet to the nearest single-
family residential uses with no direct access to residential neighborhoods. Impact to
traffic on Scottsdale Road and Bell Road is also limited as the primary access point is
on 71st Street. The Bell Road access has a right turn in and right turn out restriction,
which helps to mitigate adverse impact on traffic on the major arterial.
Staff is recommending a modification to the proposed height in the development
narrative to 110 feet. The recommended height is based on the aforementioned site
characteristics and an attempt to be consistent with the building height of approved
projects to the south. This recommendation is reflected in Stipulation No. 1.e.
The greater Kierland area has seen a significant amount of investment the last 10
years. This investment has positioned the area south of Bell Road to approximately
Acoma Drive on the west side of Scottsdale Road as a corridor for mixed used and
mid-rise development. However, this rezoning request is the first of its kind in the
northern portion of the corridor. Based on the site's unique characteristics and location,
additional building height consistent with the applicant's proposal may ultimately be
determined to be appropriate as the community, Village Planning Committee and
Page 356
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Planning Commission evaluate this request and the companion General Plan
Amendment through the public hearing process.
The lot coverage proposed for the project is 65 percent. The additional lot coverage
beyond a typical multifamily project is offset by a generous open space standard of 40
percent and is consistent with other similar projects in the corridor. The C-2 standards
on open space for multifamily is 15 percent. Therefore, the open space proposed far
exceed ordinance standards and will serve as an amenity to residents and visitors.
The proposed Bell Road (northern) Open Space Plans, Source: The Hampton Group
building setback is 23 feet with a 20-
foot landscape setback.
Landscape Standards
The PUD proposes landscaping along all sides of the building. The Development
Narrative includes increased landscape setbacks adjacent to the Bell Road street
frontage. A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be provided along Bell Road.
The landscape areas will incorporate a mixture of 2 and 3 inch caliper trees along the
north, south and east. In addition to the trees, the developer shall install minimum 5
five-gallon drought tolerant shrubs and 75 percent live ground cover.
Page 357
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
The streetscape along Scottsdale Road will include a minimum eight-foot wide
detached sidewalk with a minimum
seven-foot wide landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb.
The streetscape along Bell Road will
include a minimum 8 foot sidewalk and
8 foot landscape strip. This is
comparable to other recently approved
projects in the area. The landscaping
will provide for a pedestrian-friendly
environment with 75 percent shade at
maturity along the sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways.
Conceptual Landscape Plan, Source: The Hampton Group
Parking Standards
The proposed parking requires
a minimum amount of parking
per unit in addition to
unreserved visitor parking. In
addition, the PUD proposes a
drop off and pick up location for
ride share services.
The PUD also proposes a
minimum of 0.25 bicycle
spaces per unit with a
maximum of 25 spaces which
will comply with Section
1307.H. of the City of Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
Parking Standards, Source: The Hampton Group
Fences/Walls
All site fences and walls will be consistent with Section 703.A of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. In addition, all screen walls shall include architectural detailing consistent
or complementary to the building facade.
Page 358
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Lighting Plan
All lighting will be consistent with the standards of Section 704 (Environmental
Performance Standards) Section 507 Tab A. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and
Section 23-100 of the City Code.
Design Guidelines and Standards
The Development Narrative includes design standards that promote pedestrian
circulation on and around the site. The graphic below illustrates the proposed
pedestrian network for the site.
Design standards ensure that the building Pedestrian Circulation Plan, Source: The
Hampton Group
facade will contain 60 percent glazing to
exclude the ground floor garage screening, 10
percent masonry, 70 percent metal and at least two other materials. Elevations of the
building will provide one private balcony per unit. The garage on the ground level,
adjacent to public right-of-way, will be screened with architectural metal panels and
extrusions, translucent glazing which gives the illusion of a commercial store front and
decorative lighting in an effort ot create visual interest for pedestrians and to enhance
Page 359
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
the street frontages as depicted in the graphic below. All building elevations have
undulating floor edges, which results in visual interest. The final elevations and building
plans submitted to the City will incorporate the provisions outlined in the development
narrative and shall follow the Design Guidelines of Section 507.Tab A of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
The development narrative includes standards for the parking structure screening.
Parking structures will be screened with architectural material consistent with the
primary building façade as outlined in the development narrative. The landscape
design shall have a uniformed streetscape design and a uniform perimeter design.
Several residential amenities are also proposed, which are outlined below.
Conceptual Elevations, Source: The Hampton Group
Entry Court and Water Feature Grove
The PUD proposes a minimum 9,000 square foot entry court and minimum 2,500
square foot water feature grove near the main entry of the building off of the private
access road, 71st Street. The entry court shall include four of the following features:
• Seating/benches
• Shaded outdoor dining area
• Public art feature
• Shade canopy
• Decorative pavers
Page 360
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
• Trellis and landscape areas
The water feature grove, located within the entry court, shall include a shade canopy of
trees and seating to provide a comfortable pedestrian/tenant environment and include
three of the following:
• Seating/benches
• Movable dining tables and chairs
• Outdoor dining area
• Shade canopy
Amenities
The PUD proposes amenities intended for use by residents and guests to include a
clubhouse no less than 3,000 square feet, fitness center no less than 4,000 square
feet, shared workspace no less than 2,000 square feet, indoor wellness space no less
than 500 square feet, indoor event space no less than 4,000 square feet, roof deck
swimming pool and/or spa with at least three of the following:
• Lounge deck
• Shaded outdoor dining area
• Water features
• Barbeque grills
• Fire features
• Seating nodes
• Trellis areas
Signage
The proposed sign standards shall comply with Section 705 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Sustainability
The Development Narrative proposes several options to incorporate sustainability
principals including drought tolerant landscaping, LED lighting, and recycling
receptacles. The project also proposes retaining established trees where possible
along Bell Road and Scottsdale Road, as well as the utilization of smart controller drip
irrigation.
Page 361
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
PUD Compatibility to Zoning Ordinance
All property boundaries adjacent to public streets will include enhanced landscaping
with eight-foot wide detached sidewalks. Shade at 75 percent coverage at maturity will
be provided to increase pedestrian comfort and activity. The open space standards are
greater, requiring a minimum of 40 percent of the total net site area. The PUD
landscape setbacks proposed along Bell Road are greater compared to the minimum
requirement of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and require that 25 percent of trees be a
minimum of two-inch caliper and 75 percent be three-inch caliper.
Phasing
The project will be constructed in one phase.
Additional Requirements
In addition to the modification of the maximum height in Stipulation No. 1.e, staff is
recommended several updates to the development narrative for consistency and
enhanced building design.
The applicant will be required to submit an updated development narrative after City
Council approval reflecting Final Draft. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1 a.
A comparative zoning standards table was not included in the hearing draft of the PUD
document. Staff is requiring this in the Final Narrative. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 1 b.
In an effort to further activate the street frontages along Bell Road and Scottsdale
Road, staff is recommending the developer incorporate building entrances along both
Major Arterials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1 c.
A General Plan Land Use Map was not included int eh exhibit section of the Hearing
Draft. Staff is requiring a general Plan Land Use Map be added to the Final Draft. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 1 f.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
8. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. In addition, a vision in the master plan is to raise awareness by
leading by example. The proposal includes landscaped pedestrian walking paths, open
space areas and greater planting standards than otherwise required by the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
9. 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,
Page 362
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
and connected transportation system to include all modes, such as bicycles,
pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. There are proposed detached sidewalks adjacent to
the public streets and pathways throughout the site which provides a safer and more
comfortable pedestrian experience.
10. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan also supports options for both short-and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. The proposal requires bicycle parking spaces be provided on the site.
Bicycle racks shall consist of an inverted-U or other decorative design and installed per
the requirements of Section 1307. H. of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
11. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of recycling
containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments meeting certain
criteria. The provision of recycling is addressed in the PUD narrative.
12. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This Plan
contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with a vision
of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for
residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid population growth and
housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000 new housing units.
Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason why
housing costs are increasing. The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of
preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety
housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using
vacant land in a more sustainable fashion.
This proposal will help to meet the goals of the housing plan by reducing the gap
between housing units and number of people moving to the region.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time the staff report was written, staff had received twenty one letters of concern.
Concerns include a perceived increase in traffic, building height, character of area
changing, population density increases, lack of activation on streets frontages, loss of
commercial spaces in area, overabundance of multifamily projects in area,
infrastructure capacity concerns and size of proposed building on such a small lot.
Staff has also received 169 letters of support. Support comments include a welcomed
enhancement to the Kierland area, the proposed project will enhance and maintain a
Page 363
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
high quality of living in the area, the proposed project will bring in a built-in customer
base to existing commercial uses in the Kierland area and Scottsdale Road corridor,
the project will replace an underutilized and outdated “gateway” corner, reduction in
traffic and the project will enhance aesthetics of the corner by providing lush
landscaping and a pedestrian friendly experience.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department has proposed stipulations requiring that all
streets within and adjacent to the development be constructed with all mandatory
elements, the developer shall also dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way for the south half of
Bell Road and no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until a Traffic Impact
Study/Statement is reviewed and approved by the City. These are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
14. The City of Scottsdale Aviation Department expressed concern with the location of this
project as it relates to the airports flight paths and the 55 and 60 DNL noise contours of
Scottsdale Airport. The City of Scottsdale comments and proposed stipulations were
provided to the City of Phoenix Aviation Department for review.
16. The City of Phoenix Aviation Department has noted that the site is within the
Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) traffic pattern airspace, therefore, the developer
shall provide notice to prospective purchasers of the existence and operation
characteristics of the Scottsdale Airport and shall provide documentation that Form
7460-1 from the FAA. The requirements are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5 and 6.
17. The Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems with this case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.
18. The Public Transit Department has proposed stipulations requiring that right-of-way be
dedicated, and a bus stop pad be constructed along Scottsdale Road, that the bus
stop be shaded at 50 percent. Further, all pedestrian paths and drive isles shall be
constructed with decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete or other pavement
treatments that contrast with adjacent surfaces and be shaded by 75 percent with
vegetative shade at maturity. These are addressed in the development narrative.
19. The Water Services Department has noted the property has existing water and sewer
mains that can potentially serve the proposed development. However, there is
potential need to up size existing water and sewer infrastructure mains so that any
remodels or new buildings will be able to meet domestic and fire code requirements.
OTHER
20. 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
Page 364
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess
the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
21. 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 proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result is a more
walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment.
2. The proposed development will provide additional housing options close to employers
and designated Major Employment Centers that will contribute to a mix of housing
ytypes in in the area and additional housing in the City.
3. At the staff recommended height, the project is similar in scale and intensity to other
deployments within the Scottsdale Road corridor and larger Kierland area.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date information
on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the final
narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on Scottsdale Road and one
on Bell Road, that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to
the street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale
and the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section
Page 365
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
1305.3.a. in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
e. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 110 feet, inclusive of non-
dwelling space utilized for resident amenities location on the roof deck.
f. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use Map as an
exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations, siting the companion
GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70-feet of right-of-way for the south half of Bell
Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study had
been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements and right-of-
way dedications may be required as identified in the approved traffic study.
Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with these improvements
and dedications.
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final site plan
approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and that the
development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If temporary
equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the permanent structure a
separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and a “No Hazard Determination”
obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 366
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Writer
David Simmons
September 30, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning Sketch Map
Zoning Aerial Map
Community correspondence (201 pages)
Scottsdale & Bell PUD Development Narrative
Page 367
R-3A *
C-2 *
SCOTTSDALE RD
Z-61-96
Z-60-96
R1-14
B E LL
RD
C-2 * CITY
OF
Z-70-97 71S T
ST SCOTTSDALE
C-2 *
Phoenix City Limits
IND.PK.* Z-139-86
Z-167-87
Z-82-79
CP/GCP
PCD *
Z-11-C-75
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101 Z-12-21
Miles UNION HILLS DR
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
PARADISE VILLAGE
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
John H Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc
APPLICANT'S NAME:
FROM:
C-2 ( 2.56 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
2/25/2021
Z-12-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
2.56 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 36-44 M-12 TO: PUD ( 2.56 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 37 44
PUD 233 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-12-21.mxd
Page 368
R-3A *
C-2 *
SCOTTSDALE RD
Z-61-96
Z-60-96
R1-14
B E LL
RD
C-2 * CITY
OF
Z-70-97 71S T
ST SCOTTSDALE
C-2 *
Phoenix City Limits
IND.PK.* Z-139-86
Z-167-87
Z-82-79
CP/GCP
PCD *
Z-11-C-75
Maricopa County Assessor's
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101 Z-12-21
Miles UNION HILLS DR
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
PARADISE VILLAGE
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
John H Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc
APPLICANT'S NAME:
FROM:
C-2 ( 2.56 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
2/25/2021
Z-12-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
2.56 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 36-44 M-12 TO: PUD ( 2.56 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 37 44
PUD 233 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-12-21.mxd
Page 369
In Response to Scottsdale & Bell
Case No. Z-12-21-2
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Comments and Concerns
Architecture
The architectural vernacular chosen for this project is commendable.
However, we strongly request the following comments, concerns and suggestions be included in your
decision-making regarding the rezoning case for the SWC of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Comments and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and height requests:
- Rezoning from the current C-2 zoning to a PUD cannot be considered a minor rezoning. The request to
increase the maximum height from 56’ to 156’ with an increase of dwelling units from 44 to 255 is way
too much for this corner. The mass of the proposed building would not form a gateway but a blockade.
- The claim that this development could be the gateway to the Kierland area is farfetched since Kierland
is ± 0.93 miles further south.
- The height and mass of the proposed building will not compliment the 125’ high FLW Spire, but will
compete and dwarf it.
- Exhibit I is a map of the existing context and also shows future and current under development
projects. None of these projects, either office or residential, are remotely close to the requested height
and number of floors.
Comments and concerns regarding programming:
- The proposed programming shows no retail or public activity on street level on either Bell Road or
Scottsdale Road. Instead, it will be a screened parking garage over the first two floors. This is highly
undesirable on, what is described by the developer as a “significant intersection”. Unfortunately, this
seems to be the trend. Retail and food establishments will be taken down and will slowly, as
development continues along Scottsdale Road corridor, result in a dead and inactive streetscape.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 370
Suggestions to consider:
A strict limit on height.
There should be a gradual increase in height along the Scottsdale road corridor, starting at The Courtyard with
3 stories North of the Canal along Bell Road, to the 12 story Optima Kierland Buildings.
The height limit/reduction to 6 floors would bring the following benefits.
- Less of a barrier/wall and a more friendly gesture while traveling south on Scottsdale Road.
- Less visible from the neighboring single-family developments to the West.
- A better integration with its surrounding developments. Exhibit I
- A better dialog with the FLW Spire across Scottsdale Road.
A change in program
A reduction in height and thus number of dwellings results in a reduction in the need for parking. This opens
up the possibility for retail/restaurants on street level which will enhance the activity and liveliness of this
important and prominent corner and with that can really become a grand introduction/gateway to the
Kierland area.
A section of the new proposed program and number of floors
Level 6: Residential
Level 5: Residential
Level 4: Residential
Level 3: Residential
Level 2: Parking
Level 1 (Street): Retail/Food and Lobby for Residential
Basement 1: Parking
Basement 2: Parking
Conclusion:
As the developer mentions in his description “The Kierland area is a highly desirable part of Phoenix due to its
proximity to a number of high-end urban amenities” and “The project provides an opportunity to redevelop a
simple 1-story retail building located at this significant intersection with high quality residential development
that will add an architectural statement on the Phoenix side of Scottsdale Road, with an overall goal of framing
this critical route and enhancing the Kierland area to the south”
Let’s treat this corner the way it deserves.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 371
Exhibit I
Context Map
Existing, Currently Under Development and Future Projects
Along Scottsdale Road
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 372
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 373
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 8:03 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: emdist2 - Form Submission
Good Morning David,
Please add to the public record.
Thank you,
Christine
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:54 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Denise Kamber
SUBJECT : Proposed 14 story building at Scottsdale and Bell Roads
MESSAGE : Good Morning Councilman Waring,
It has come to my attention that there is a proposal to bui ld a fourteen story building at the corner of Scottsdale and Bell
Roads. I live at 64th Street & Bell and am very concerned about this proposal. The intersection of Scottsdale and Bell
Roads is an extremely busy intersection. I will often go out of my way to avoid it. Building a fourteen story building will
only add to this congestion.
There are currently two five story apartment buildings going up just west of Scottsdale Road, north of Kierland. There is
also a large development going in at Tatum and Bell. This area has already become overly congested in the 11 years I
have lived here. I do not want to see my neighborhood become even more congested. The traffic congestion and
accidents along Bell Road are an issue and building another high rise will just contribute to this issue.
As a result, I respectfully request that you please reject this proposal for the good of our beautiful city. Thank you for
taking the time to address my concerns.
Sincerely,
Denise Kamber
Email : denisekamber@yahoo.com
AREA : 480
PHONE : 4335527
ADDRESS : 6501 E Kelton LN
Page 374
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: b38b9d6c4bd54713bbb8076752364322
Form Submission On : 5/19/2021 7:54:18 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 375
David O Simmons
From: Elaine Faraci
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:58 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Bell & Scottsdale
As a resident of Greenbriar East, I am writing to express my deep concern for this building. It is WAY oversize, taller than
all the buildings in the area and will bring too much traffic to an already crowded intersection. Please consider the size
and scope of problems this building will have on our community, I also do not understand how a building so tall can be
erected so near the airport. Please do not let this EYESORE be built. In comparison to the Kierland complex several
blocks away it is awful looking. Thank you for your consideration in tis matter.
Elaine Faraci, 6909 East Kings Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85254 (480 348 2599) elainecf4@yahoo.com
Page 376
David O Simmons
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 8:35 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Hi David, Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 12:15 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Elaine Faraci
Email : elainecf4@yahoo.com
Comments : As a resident of Greenbriar East, I m writing to beg you, the city of Phoenix and all involved to reconsider
the approval of the monstrous apartment under consideration at the Scottsdale and Bell Roads intersection. It is way,
way oversized for the corner, larger than any other building in the area and will have a detrimental affect on an already
over burdened intersection. Aside from being oversized it is not at all attractive and belongs in the heart of a city and
not in our residential area. There are thousands of apartments being built in our area that conform in size and elevation
to the surrounding buildings. Why allow this ugly oversized building to be built. Please, please reconsider approval of
this building. Thank you, Elaine Faraci, 6909 E. Kings Ave, 85254
Submission ID: f475652959c44870807362eb7061e00e
Form Submission On : 4/18/2021 12:15:18 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 377
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:08 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: New construction & rezoning.
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 8:49 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : David Frei
SUBJECT : New construction & rezoning.
MESSAGE : I am opposed to the Cities of Phoenix & Scottsdale allowing the new construction of apartment buildings &
14 story high rise multi family use buildings.
There is a severe water shortage in our area & some are already talking about possible water shortages and water
restrictions for the area.
Why punish the people who have lived here for years by allowing all of this new construction?
This is NOT progress, this is self destruction by large corporations that due not even shop, live or pay taxes in the areas
they are developed.
Email : scdlfreis@gmail.com
AREA : 480
PHONE : 3615939
ADDRESS : 6741 E Aire Libre Ln
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: b50a175fd5a84f369d9f56c60d587623
Form Submission On : 4/25/2021 8:49:02 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 378
David O Simmons
From: Gary Coleshill
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:39 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Fwd: Scottsdale & Bell Case No. Z-12-21-2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Regards
Gary Coleshill
President
Coleshill & Associates & Elite Pro Speakers
1-888-894-2929
[eliteprospeakers.com]www.eliteprospeakers.com [eliteprospeakers.com]
To help
protect y our
priv acy ,
Micro so ft
Office
prev ented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gary Coleshill
Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:22 PM
Subject: Scottsdale & Bell Case No. Z-12-21-2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL
ROAD
To:
Hi David,
I just saw plans for the above development and frankly I`m shocked.
That development is way too big to be crammed into that area.
That corner is already a traffic nightmare, and will be made much much worse with this monstrosity adding 500 cars plus
per day to the traffic.
This building is too big, and too ugly for the area.
What is the proper procedure to oppose this project, or is it too late?
Regards
Gary Coleshill
480 607 0294
Page 379
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: Building on the SW corner of Scottsdale & Bell Rds
From: Diane Griffith
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 1:32 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Building on the SW corner of Scottsdale & Bell Rds
Hi, Councilman Waring. I am a resident in the neighborhood adjacent to where this proposed monstrosity will
be going. I have lived in this neighborhood for 20 years. While I understand that building is inevitable, I have
huge concerns regarding not only the effect on traffic on Bell Rd, but also the overall height. Prior to
purchasing our current home, I did research into the zoning, and am aware that the location is zoned to allow
a maximum of 4 stories. This proposed building is seeking to build 14 stories. Again while I am open to
building, I would ask for your consideration into the proposed height of the building and ask that you move
toward not allowing this height of a structure in our neighborhood. Thank you -
Diane Griffith, FCLS, CIFI, MBA
Senior Special Investigator
Special Investigations Unit
Farmers Insurance Exchange
24000 N Farmers Way
Phoenix, AZ 85085
480) 406-1463 cell
855) 856-2294 fax
COVID-19 Notice – In light of the national health emergency, I am currently working from home. I can be reached by
telephone and e-mail; my phone number and email address have not changed. Email communications are preferred to
avoid any potential delays caused by mailing. If you are unable to use email and hard copies of communications are
required, they may be sent to our National Document Center at P.O. Box 268994, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8994. We
are unable to receive deliveries at any location from FedEx, UPS or any other courier at this time, as our Claims office
locations have been temporarily closed.
Page 380
***** PLEASE NOTE ***** This E-Mail/telefax message and any documents accompanying this transmission may
contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above. If you are
not the intended addressee/recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or
reliance on the contents of this E-Mail/telefax information is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action against
you. Please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission and immediately delete/destroy the message and
any accompanying documents. Thank you.*****
*******
Page 381
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: Scottsdale and Bell HIGH-RISE
From: joan kiser
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 1:06 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Scottsdale and Bell HIGH-RISE
I don't know what you people are thinking but this is the LAST thing that we need in our neighborhood. Traffic
is already a nightmare in that area and the airport is so close!
it's already too congested and too dense. It's just an ill-conceived idea that will destroy our neighborhood.
I beg of you to re-consider this.
Joan Kiser
*******
Page 382
David O Simmons
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:45 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: zoning PUD
David Please respond to customer. Thanks Vikki Zoning
From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:38 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: zoning PUD
Good afternoon,
Please see email below from customer.
Thank you
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:00 PM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd - Form Submission
FROM : James mailloux
SUBJECT : Hampton Group application for SW corner of Bell & Scottsdale road
MESSAGE : I understand a zoning PUD proposal has been submitted for this site. I would like to know how to access this
application and what will be the schedule for the opportunity for public comment? What I read bout this projects leads
me to have some initial concerns.
Wayne Mailloux
President, Kierland Community Alliance
Email : lonewaynger@me.com
AREA : 203
PHONE : 2474199
ADDRESS : 7120 E Kierland Blvd. unit 1207
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Page 383
David O Simmons
From: Alan Stephenson
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 1:12 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC; Christine M Pedersen; David O Simmons
Subject: RE: emdist2 - Form Submission
David,
Please see below and respond to the resident and copy Christine and myself.
Thanks,
Alan
Alan Stephenson
Planning and Development Director
alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov
(602) 262-6656
FOR DIRECT CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PDD SECTIONS AND STAFF:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/contact-us
FOR EPR TIPS AND STEP BY STEP PROCEDURES: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/onlineservices/electronic-
plan-review
FOR OTHER DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
www.phoenix.gov/pdd
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:24 AM
To: Alan Stephenson; Christine M Pedersen
Subject: Fwd: emdist2 - Form Submission
Alan is this something you can provide?
Get Outlook for iOS
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:07:40 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Sean McCooy
SUBJECT : Requesting assistance in getting information on a proposed rezone and redevelopment
Page 384
MESSAGE : Hello, Jim -
As you know, there is a substantial residential building proposal on the table for the Southwest corner of Scottsdale and
Bell / Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. I watched the developer's presentation a few weeks ago and am wondering how I can
either get copies of, or review, the physical specifics of the development. This would include things like physical
dimensions, capacity, percentage of lot under roof, auto/traffic/parking projections, water source and usage projections,
sewage treatment location and flow projections as well as the revisions needed to the Comp Plan to facilitate this
development.
Your assistance or direction as to where I could get this information would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much,
Sean McCoy
Email : sean@smccoytax.com
AREA : 602
PHONE : 954-9683
ADDRESS : p o box 12757
CITY : Scottadale
STATE : az
ZIP : 85267
Submission ID: e59d94b240b94b8da8db5557d7304f10
Form Submission On : 5/11/2021 8:07:40 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 385
David O Simmons
From: Marty Mogalian
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 4:15 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: updates re Kierland area
Hi David,
My wife and I attended the online public meeting that was scheduled 04/05/21 at 6 p.m. regarding GPA-PV-1-21-2
(there was also a reference to a companion case # Z-12-21-2). This pertained to the southwest corner of Scottsdale RD
and Bell RD. That same evening there was a discussion regarding case # Z-63-20-2 & GPA-PV-1-20-2. This pertained to
the 7.14 acres at Greenway PKWY and Kierland BLVD.
My understanding per the PV Village Planning Committee members that evening suggested a decision by the committee
would be determined within 2 - 3 months which puts it at June or July regarding the Scottsdale and Bell RD request from
C-2 to PUD. Is that correct?
With regards to Greenway PKWY and Kierland BLVD, I could not tell if on the evening of 04/05/21 if the committee
formally approved that request or if that is still yet to be determined?
Any response is greatly appreciated. I first called and left you a voice message from my cell phone which is 602-448-
9234. You can certainly ignore that if you see this first. Thank you.
Marty Mogalian
6703 E Beverly LN
Scottsdale AZ 85254
--
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
What's Your Home Worth? [bhhsaz.findbuyers.com]
Get three automated Estimates - Instantly.
No cost, and no obligation. [bhhsaz.findbuyers.com]
Page 386
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:08 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: 14 Story Building, Scottsdale and Bell.
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:12 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Natasha Noorda
SUBJECT : 14 Story Building, Scottsdale and Bell.
MESSAGE : Dear Mr. Waring,
I felt sick inside when I learned of the intention to build a 14 story building on the corner of Bell and Scottsdale Road. A
building of that magnitude would be a nightmare for traffic at an already busy intersection. Why would anyone allow a
neighborhood to be so destroyed by creating such an eyesore on that corner? It would look really ugly and reduce the
quality of life for this neighborhood, both visually and functionally. This should never be allowed.
Very truly,
Natasha Noorda
Email : Natashapn@cox.net
AREA : 85254
PHONE : 9287135017
ADDRESS : 6856 E. Sandra Terrace
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : Arizona
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: 6f39144cdad14daa8cea11de91e1bb0b
Form Submission On : 4/24/2021 5:12:02 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
Page 387
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: Proposed Development at Scottsdale and Bell Rd
From: Reece, Keith
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 at 9:20 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Proposed Development at Scottsdale and Bell Rd
To Jim Waring:
I am a resident in the 85254 district and there is a proposed development on the SW corner of Bell Rd and Scottsdale
that is a proposed 14 story high rise. This is a terrible idea for the following reasons:
o Traffic Congestion – this intersection is already over crowded with the multi-use developments in the Kierland
area it is a nightmare to go through this area between 6-8 AM and 3-6 PM
o Detrimental to our environment – this high density project is bad for our local environment with the additional
traffic comes the increase in cars and pollution.
o Aesthetically Wrong – this will be the largest high rise in the neighborhood and Scottsdale should not be turned
into a corridor for high rises and increased crime.
Please fight against this proposal. I have lived in this area for over 25 years, when Kierland weas a farm field and
Greenway was a dead end at 64th St. All of the development that has occurred in the area has only increased traffic and
crimes and someone has to take a stand and say “enough is enough” I appreciate your understanding in this matter.
Best Regards,
Keith Reece
*******
Page 388
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:10 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning for FLW and Scottsdale rd apartment bldg
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:09 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Judy Reid
SUBJECT : Zoning for FLW and Scottsdale rd apartment bldg
MESSAGE : Dear Mr. Waring,
I am writing to share that I and many of my neighbors are against the height and density of the apartment bldg being
planned for the area. I heard there was a little publicized zoning hearing recently. It is far too tall and too many units to
allow for adequate traffic flow , not to mention the eye sore of the height of the bldg. This is not downtown Phoenix.
I know you have been very responsive in the past to the needs of the neighbors. Please let us know what we can do to
modify this catastrophe. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judy Reid
Email : jreid7@cox.net
AREA : 602
PHONE : 6772879
ADDRESS : 5805 E. Grandview R.
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: bf45d7bc357043eab07055181049568c
Form Submission On : 4/30/2021 8:08:27 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 389
In Response to Scottsdale & Bell
Case No. Z-12-21-2
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Comments and Concerns
Architecture
The architectural vernacular chosen for this project is commendable.
However, we strongly request the following comments, concerns and suggestions be included in your
decision-making regarding the rezoning case for the SWC of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Comments and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and height requests:
- Rezoning from the current C-2 zoning to a PUD cannot be considered a minor rezoning. The request to
increase the maximum height from 56’ to 156’ with an increase of dwelling units from 44 to 255 is way
too much for this corner. The mass of the proposed building would not form a gateway but a blockade.
- The claim that this development could be the gateway to the Kierland area is farfetched since Kierland
is ± 0.93 miles further south.
- The height and mass of the proposed building will not compliment the 125’ high FLW Spire, but will
compete and dwarf it.
- Exhibit I is a map of the existing context and also shows future and current under development
projects. None of these projects, either office or residential, are remotely close to the requested height
and number of floors.
Comments and concerns regarding programming:
- The proposed programming shows no retail or public activity on street level on either Bell Road or
Scottsdale Road. Instead, it will be a screened parking garage over the first two floors. This is highly
undesirable on, what is described by the developer as a “significant intersection”. Unfortunately, this
seems to be the trend. Retail and food establishments will be taken down and will slowly, as
development continues along Scottsdale Road corridor, result in a dead and inactive streetscape.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 390
Suggestions to consider:
A strict limit on height.
There should be a gradual increase in height along the Scottsdale road corridor, starting at The Courtyard with
3 stories North of the Canal along Bell Road, to the 12 story Optima Kierland Buildings.
The height limit/reduction to 6 floors would bring the following benefits.
- Less of a barrier/wall and a more friendly gesture while traveling south on Scottsdale Road.
- Less visible from the neighboring single-family developments to the West.
- A better integration with its surrounding developments. Exhibit I
- A better dialog with the FLW Spire across Scottsdale Road.
A change in program
A reduction in height and thus number of dwellings results in a reduction in the need for parking. This opens
up the possibility for retail/restaurants on street level which will enhance the activity and liveliness of this
important and prominent corner and with that can really become a grand introduction/gateway to the
Kierland area.
A section of the new proposed program and number of floors
Level 6: Residential
Level 5: Residential
Level 4: Residential
Level 3: Residential
Level 2: Parking
Level 1 (Street): Retail/Food and Lobby for Residential
Basement 1: Parking
Basement 2: Parking
Conclusion:
As the developer mentions in his description “The Kierland area is a highly desirable part of Phoenix due to its
proximity to a number of high-end urban amenities” and “The project provides an opportunity to redevelop a
simple 1-story retail building located at this significant intersection with high quality residential development
that will add an architectural statement on the Phoenix side of Scottsdale Road, with an overall goal of framing
this critical route and enhancing the Kierland area to the south”
Let’s treat this corner the way it deserves.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 391
Exhibit I
Context Map
Existing, Currently Under Development and Future Projects
Along Scottsdale Road
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 392
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 393
David O Simmons
From: ronald@suite6.net
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:53 PM
To: David O Simmons; PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Subject: Comments Concerns Rezoning Case Z-12-21-2
Attachments: Comments and Concerns Rezoning Case Z-12-21-2.pdf
Dear David and Planning Commission,
Please find attached a document that outline our concerns and suggestions for the development proposed on the SWC
Bell Road and Scottsdale. Also included a context map of the surrounding buildings and future developments.
I have send this document to David before. But since this is an important issue allow me to send it again.
In addition to the comments made in the attached, I would like to emphasize that by allowing a building of this height
would set a dangerous president for the rest of the Scottdale R oad corridor. I am not opposed to development but it has
to be in proportion to the location and context.
In the hope you make a well-educated recommendation/decision,
Kind Regards,
Ronald de Bont – Senior Designer
suite 6 architecture + planning
6111 north cattletrack road
scottsdale, az 85250
480 348 7800
Page 394
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:10 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning @ Bell Rd. & FLW, Southwest corner
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:23 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Marilyn S Slaven
SUBJECT : Zoning @ Bell Rd. & FLW, Southwest corner
MESSAGE : I am concerned about a high-rise structure being built on this corner. The traffic problem alone should
preclude this plan. I am not opposed to growth or an increased population, but I believe it can be done thoughtfully,
with an eye to the future. One other item: I don't think this change of zoning was publicized enough to achieve a fair
amount of public opinion. Thank you for listening. A 35 year resident
Email : marilynslaven7@gmail.com
AREA : 602
PHONE : 4189177
ADDRESS : 5201 E. Blanche Dr.
CITY : SCOTTSDALE
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: e57b72eee9f14120b65e96a6d9bb1db8
Form Submission On : 4/30/2021 8:23:34 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 395
David O Simmons
From: Candice Steel
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 3:25 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-PV-1-21-2 (Companion Case Z-12-21-2):
Please do not rezone this property into multi-family units. This local community is already being engulfed by multi- family
properties and the intersection is heavily congested.
Rather than congest our streets, invest in the small businesses that are integral to our economy and what makes this
area so special. Who in the community will really benefit from this besides the developers and the city council
members? People live in this area because it is not a metropolis. Let’s keep it that way!
Page 396
In Response to Scottsdale & Bell
Case No. Z-12-21-2
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Comments and Concerns
Architecture
The architectural vernacular chosen for this project is commendable.
However, we strongly request the following comments, concerns and suggestions be included in your
decision-making regarding the rezoning case for the SWC of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Comments and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and height requests:
- Rezoning from the current C-2 zoning to a PUD cannot be considered a minor rezoning. The request to
increase the maximum height from 56’ to 156’ with an increase of dwelling units from 44 to 255 is way
too much for this corner. The mass of the proposed building would not form a gateway but a blockade.
- The claim that this development could be the gateway to the Kierland area is farfetched since Kierland
is ± 0.93 miles further south.
- The height and mass of the proposed building will not compliment the 125’ high FLW Spire, but will
compete and dwarf it.
- Exhibit I is a map of the existing context and also shows future and current under development
projects. None of these projects, either office or residential, are remotely close to the requested height
and number of floors.
Comments and concerns regarding programming:
- The proposed programming shows no retail or public activity on street level on either Bell Road or
Scottsdale Road. Instead, it will be a screened parking garage over the first two floors. This is highly
undesirable on, what is described by the developer as a “significant intersection”. Unfortunately, this
seems to be the trend. Retail and food establishments will be taken down and will slowly, as
development continues along Scottsdale Road corridor, result in a dead and inactive streetscape.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 397
Suggestions to consider:
A strict limit on height.
There should be a gradual increase in height along the Scottsdale road corridor, starting at The Courtyard with
3 stories North of the Canal along Bell Road, to the 10 story Optima Kierland Buildings.
The height limit/reduction to 6 floors would bring the following benefits.
- Less of a barrier/wall and a more friendly gesture while traveling south on Scottsdale Road.
- Less visible from the neighboring single-family developments to the West.
- A better integration with its surrounding developments. Exhibit I
- A better dialog with the FLW Spire across Scottsdale Road.
A change in program
A reduction in height and thus number of dwellings results in a reduction in the need for parking. This opens
up the possibility for retail/restaurants on street level which will enhance the activity and liveliness of this
important and prominent corner and with that can really become a grand introduction/gateway to the
Kierland area.
A section of the new proposed program and number of floors
Level 6: Residential
Level 5: Residential
Level 4: Residential
Level 3: Residential
Level 2: Parking
Level 1 (Street): Retail/Food and Lobby for Residential
Basement 1: Parking
Basement 2: Parking
Conclusion:
As the developer mentions in his description “The Kierland area is a highly desirable part of Phoenix due to its
proximity to a number of high-end urban amenities” and “The project provides an opportunity to redevelop a
simple 1-story retail building located at this significant intersection with high quality residential development
that will add an architectural statement on the Phoenix side of Scottsdale Road, with an overall goal of framing
this critical route and enhancing the Kierland area to the south”
Let’s treat this corner the way it deserves.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 398
Exhibit I
Context Map
Existing, Currently Under Development and Future Projects
Along Scottsdale Road
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 399
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 400
David O Simmons
From: wayne mailloux
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:21 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No. Z-12-21-2, Scottsdale & Bell PUD
Many thanks for forwarding this David.
Wayne
On Mar 8, 2021, at 11:07 AM, David O Simmons wrote:
Mr. Mailloux,
An application has been submitted for the southwest corner of Scottsdale Rd and Bell/Frank Lloyd
Wright. You can review the applicants first review narrative
here: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
Please let me know I you have any questions or concerns. Take care and talk soon.
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Planner II* Village Planner
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:45 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: zoning PUD
David Please respond to customer. Thanks Vikki Zoning
From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:38 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: zoning PUD
Good afternoon,
Please see email below from customer.
Thank you
Page 401
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:00 PM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd - Form Submission
FROM : James mailloux
SUBJECT : Hampton Group application for SW corner of Bell & Scottsdale road
MESSAGE : I understand a zoning PUD proposal has been submitted for this site. I would like to know how to access
this application and what will be the schedule for the opportunity for public comment? What I read bout this projects
leads me to have some initial concerns.
Wayne Mailloux
President, Kierland Community Alliance
Email : lonewaynger@me.com
AREA : 203
PHONE : 2474199
ADDRESS : 7120 E Kierland Blvd. unit 1207
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: 09867d55e3c94b7db1f6a5baf31d276f
Form Submission On : 3/4/2021 1:59:39 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 402
Page 403
Page 404
Page 405
Page 406
Page 407
Page 408
Page 409
Page 410
Page 411
Page 412
Page 413
Page 414
Page 415
Page 416
Page 417
Page 418
Page 419
Page 420
Page 421
Page 422
Page 423
Page 424
Page 425
Page 426
Page 427
Page 428
Page 429
Page 430
Page 431
Page 432
Page 433
Page 434
Page 435
Page 436
Page 437
Page 438
Page 439
Page 440
Page 441
Page 442
Page 443
Page 444
Page 445
Page 446
Page 447
Page 448
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
Page 452
Page 453
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Page 458
Page 459
Page 460
Page 461
Page 462
Page 463
Page 464
Page 465
Page 466
Page 467
Page 468
Page 469
Page 470
Page 471
Page 472
Page 473
Page 474
Page 475
Page 476
Page 477
Page 478
Page 479
Page 480
Page 481
Page 482
Page 483
Page 484
Page 485
Page 486
Page 487
Page 488
Page 489
Page 490
Page 491
Page 492
Page 493
Page 494
Page 495
Page 496
Page 497
Page 498
Page 499
Page 500
Page 501
Page 502
Page 503
Page 504
Page 505
Page 506
Page 507
Page 508
Page 509
Page 510
Page 511
Page 512
Page 513
Page 514
Page 515
Page 516
Page 517
Page 518
Page 519
Page 520
Page 521
Page 522
Page 523
Page 524
Page 525
Page 526
Page 527
Page 528
Page 529
Page 530
Page 531
Page 532
Page 533
Page 534
Page 535
Page 536
Page 537
Page 538
Page 539
Page 540
Page 541
Page 542
Page 543
Page 544
Page 545
Page 546
Page 547
Page 548
Page 549
Page 550
Page 551
Page 552
Page 553
Page 554
Page 555
Page 556
Page 557
Page 558
Page 559
Page 560
Page 561
Page 562
Page 563
Page 564
Page 565
Page 566
Page 567
Page 568
Page 569
Page 570
Page 571
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-12-21-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting April 5, 2021
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Location Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-PV-1-21-2 and Z-12-21-2 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in opposition, wishing to speak.
Mr. Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided an
overview of the request to include background of how the area developed over
time, the General Plan Land Use Map designation of GPA request. Mr. Wood
elaborated on the high volume of traffic at the intersection of Bell Road and
Scottsdale Road and used this as an argument for the proposed height of the
building. Mr. Wood also went over conceptual site plans and elevations as well
as proposed parking and landscape standards. Further, Mr. Wood shared public
outreach efforts conducted to date.
Vice Chair Joe Lesher shared that he thinks the building has a nice design but
has a concern with the proposed height. He also thought that this is an awkward
location for high end residential adjacent to two major arterials.
Mr. Wood shared that there is nothing more constant than change. He
elaborated by sharing that the City of Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country
and will continue to grow up in height as the population grows due to the need for
more residential units in the area.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked if the proposed open space is all on the ground level.
Mr. Nick Wood shared that the proposed open space is located on the ground
level as well as on the roof deck.
Ms. Jennifer Hall shared that she too has concerns with the proposed height.
The building as depicted on the elevations are simply too tall for this area.
Public Comment:
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 572
None (no show)
Applicants Response:
None
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 573
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-12-21-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 04, 2021
Request From C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
VPC Recommendation Approval, subject to two stipulation modifications and
two additional stipulations
VPC Vote 11-4 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Mortensen, Popovic, Severs,
Sparks, Wise, and Gubser in favor. Committee
members Balderrama, Petersen, Ward and Lesher not
in favor.
VPC DISCUSSION:
1 speaker card was submitted in support, wishing to speak
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Desert
Ridge and Kierland Employment Center, Comprehensive Bicycle Master plan,
Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles, Zero Waste
Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix Plan. Mr.
Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed stipulations
for the case including Stipulation 1.e. recommending the building height be
limited to a maximum of 110 feet as there is no existing policy basis to support
the proposed height of 141 feet. However, since no adopted policy plan exists for
the Scottsdale Road corridor, the Village Planning Committee is more than able
to recommend what they feel is appropriate for this site. He shared that the site is
unique as it is located on the corner of two Major Arterials as well as transit
corridors, which could warrant more height.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked staff what the maximum height is.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 574
Mr. Simmons shared that the maximum heigh stipulated by staff is 110 feet,
however, the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 141 feet, exclusive of
root top amenity structures.
Ms. Diane Petersen shared that she has concerns with traffic patterns on the
private access drive (71st Street).
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, provided an in-depth and detailed presentation
on both cases concurrently. He stated that the existing commercial retail on this
site is closing and as a result, the property is selling. He shared that the
proposed project is an architectural marvel that will be highlighted as a “gem” of
the corridor, if approved as proposed by the applicant. He shared that corner
serves as a gateway to the Kierland area and Scottsdale Road corridor to the
south. He also highlighted that the improvements to the site would be a welcome
addition to the area, creating a pedestrian friendly environment and an
aesthetically pleasing entry gateway with pedestrian friendly lighting and an
above par garage wrap, mimicking commercial retail storer frontages.
Mr. Wood shared that the Scottsdale Airport employs more than 50, 000 people
currently and is growing to accommodate more than 70,000 workers in tech and
other high paying, professional industries. Housing is needed for this growth in
workforce and this proposal would fulfill the need for executive level housing
options in the area. He also highlighted that the proposal is located within a Major
Employment Center. This proposal would also fulfill the goals of alternative
housing option in a Major Employment Center. Mr. Wood elaborated on Centers
and Corridors outlined int eh City of Phoenix General Plan. Although no formal
Centers or Corridors have been adopted, the Kierland Area would constitute this,
but has yet to be formally established. The applicants proposed height would be
supported if this corridor was considered a formal Corridor. Mr. Wood also
shared graphics of what the roof top amenity areas would look like upon
completion. Further, Mr. Wood shared projected traffic counts and emphasized
that this proposal would not add any additional strain to traffic patterns in the
area, per CivTech’ s traffic analysis.
Mr. Wood proposed changes to two at staff’s recommended stipulations as
follows:
Stipulation No. 1.d. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 141
feet, inclusive EXCLUSIVE of non-dwelling space utilized for resident amenities
location on the roof deck.
Stipulation No. 1.e. Add the following development and design standards to the
development narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR
WITHIN 50 FEET OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell
Road, that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale and
the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section 1305.3.a.
in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 575
Lastly, Mr. Wood went over community outreach efforts and applauded the team
for mitigating all opposition prior to public hearings for recommendation.
Ms. Cindy DiMassa stated that there are currently no sidewalks along the
private access drive (71st St). If pedestrians do not have access to Bell Road and
Scottsdale road residents will have to walk on the private access drive, which will
put them in danger.
Mr. Wood shared that they are proposing exits for residents on the corners of the
building, which will provide direct access to tenants to both Bell road and
Scottsdale Road from eh building.
Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if the public outreach slide, reflecting all of the dots,
address building heights.
Mr. Wood shared that the graphic does not address building heights but is
directly related to a broad based policy document similar to a General Plan.
Mr. Alex Popovic gave kudos to the development team for mitigating all
opposition prior to coming before the hearing bodies for recommendation. He
shared that he is in full support of the proposal as presented by the applicant, to
include the proposed height of 141 feet.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked if the intersection at 71st Street and Bell was
safe for left hand turns wests bound on Bell.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, shared that the intersection is safe,
but not easy to maneuver during peak hours.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked staff why the proposed stipulation limiting the height to
110 feet.
Mr. Simmons shared that there is no current adopted policy plan in place that
would support the applicants proposed height at this time, but there are site
conditions that would warrant a height of 110 feet based on formulas used to
justify heights on recently approved projects using distance from single-family
residential as a justification.
Mr. Wood shared that the staff reports highlights that the Village Planning
Committee is open to make recommendations on height due to the lack of
existing policy plans int eh area. He defended the proposed height of 14q feet,
exclusive of root top amenity structures.
Ms. Gerst asked if the applicants proposed height was okay with the City of
Scottsdale Aviation Department.
Mr. Simmons shared that the City of Scottsdale Aviation Department did not
provide any recommended stipulations in regard to height for this proposal.
Mr. Roy Wise asked if 71st Street has access to Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Mr. Wood shared that access is exiting on both Major Arterials from the private
access drive (71st Street).
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 576
Mr. Paul Severs asked if this proposal was limited to 110 feet, as proposed by
staff, would it kill the project from moving forward.
Mr. Wood shared that the project would not make economic sense if it were to
be capped at 100 feet, therefore, it would kill the project.
Mr. Alan Sparks shared that he loves the building as proposed. He shared that
he lives in the neighborhood and has no objection to the applicants proposed
height. However, he shared that he is opposed to the project due to lack of
improvements on 71st Street. He stated that there are no proposed or existing
sidewalks on the private access drive. He shared that the street is too narrow
and is a small two way private street. He also shared that people illegally park
along the street, which blocks easy ingress and ingress through the area. He
also shared concerns about emergency responders being able to get through the
street when cars are illegally parked along it. He asked if the developer plans to
improve it or address the existing inadequate conditions.
Mr. Wood shared that CivTech determined that the private access drive was
indeed adequate and safe in regard to the number of units proposed. He shared
that this is outlined in the traffic analysis report generated by the traffic engineer.
Ms. Gerst asked if the number of units proposed was for the 110 feet or 141 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the 255 units were proposed at the height of 14 feet. If the
project is capped at 110 feet, the developer will walk away, and the project will
not come to fruition.
Ms. Gerst asked if it were a possibility to gate the private access way in an effort
to make the project a private community.
Mr. Wood shared that this was not a possibility as the public needs access
through the private access drive as well.
Chairman Robert Gubser shared that higher traffic generating uses line the
private access drive and the aces way functions just fine now.
Mr. Wood concurred.
Mr. Popovic asked what alternative exists for the site if this project dies not
come to fruition. He also shared concerns with illegal parking along the private
access way. He recommended having illegally parked cars towed to help to
mitigate this problem.
Ms. Diane Petersen asked if the developer would walk if the height were capped
at 110 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the developer would walk if the height were to be capped
at 110 feet.
Public Comment:
Mr. Bryan Jefferies spoke in support of the proposal. He shared that this use
would generate much lower traffic counts than a commercial use and provides
alternative housing options for executives working in the Scottsdale Airpark. He
also shared that he proposed heigh by the developer is a non-issue as the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 577
project is quite far away from single-family residential uses. He stated that the
project would not have a negative impact on existing residents.
Mr. Abram Bowman left the meeting around 8:00, bringing quorum down to 15.
Applicants Response:
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, proposed an alternative to the
perceived issues with the right hand turn onto Bell Road from the private access
drive. She recommended the committee propose an additional stipulation
requiring further discussion with the Streets department for the addition of a
refuge lane on Bell Road west bound.
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, stated that he would be happy to add this as a
stipulation. He shared that the applicant would have to ask permission for an
additional lane in the median from the Streets department.
Chairman Robert Gubser asked if there were any additional concerns about
71sst Street servicing this project.
Ms. Cartier replied, no.
Mr. Alan Sparks stated that he does have concerns with the existing conditions
on 71st Street.
Mr. Wood asked the committee to recommend approval subject to the two
stipulation modifications he proposed as well as the addition of two additional
stipulations discussed by the committee.
Chairman Gubser expressed his full support of the project as proposed by the
applicant.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher expressed concerns with the proposed height. He
shared that he had researched height in the area and the closets building with
similar heigh were located on the Scottsdale Waterfront in Old town Scottsdale.
He also shared that the new buildings along Tempe Town lake were comparable
in height. He shared that he is willing to support the staff recommendation of 110
feet maximum. He shared that he feels that the applicants proposed height does
not feel right for this area.
Ms. Cynthis DiMassa stated that towing the cars along the private access drive
would be a waste of time for the Phoenix Police Department.
Mr. Robert Goodhue stated that he has a couple of issues. He shared that is a
building were to have a height proposed by this applicant in this area, this site
would be the most appropriate. He also shared that the character of the area is
changing in this direction.
Ms. Gerst asked if it would be more palatable for the maximum building height to
be 141 feet inclusive of the roof top amenity structures.
Mr. Wood shared that the roof top amenity structures are in descript and cannot
be seen from the street level.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 578
Ms. Jennifer Hall stated that the committee does not have an adopted policy
basis for this area, even though it has been asked to be initiated in the recent
past. She stated that the applicant’s proposal of 141 feet is acceptable due to the
unique conditions on this specific site. She is also amazed that there is no public
opposition and applauded the applicant for mitigating all concerns prior to public
hearings.
MOTION:
Mr. Alex Popovic made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Case No.
Z-12-21-2, with two stipulation modifications and two additional stipulations.
Mr. Roy Wise seconded the motion.
VOTE:
11-4 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst, Goodhue, Hall, Mazza,
Mortensen, Popovic, Severs, Sparks, Wise, and Gubser in favor. Committee
members Balderrama, Petersen, Ward and Lesher not in favor.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the
final narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR WITHIN 50
FEET OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell Road,
that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented
scale and the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per
Section 1305.3.a. in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
e. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 110 feet, inclusive
E of non-dwelling space utilized for resident amenities location on the roof
deck.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 579
f. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use Map
as an exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations, siting the
companion GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70-feet of right-of-way for the south half
of Bell Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
had been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements
and right-of-way dedications may be required as identified in the approved traffic
study. Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with these
improvements and dedications.
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final
site plan approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and that
the development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If
temporary equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the
permanent structure a separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and
a “No Hazard Determination” obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COLLABORATE WITH THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR A
REFUGE LANE IN THE MEDIAN WEST BOUND ON BELL ROAD AT 71st
STREET.
9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS FROM THE SITE TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD.
Staff Comments:
None
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 580
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-12-21-2 (Scottsdale & Bell Road PUD)
(Companion Case GPA-PV-1-21-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
From: C-2
To: PUD
Acreage: 2.56
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential and commercial
uses.
Applicant: John H Berry, The Hampton Group
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 4/5/2021 Information only.
Paradise Valley 10/4/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications and
additional stipulations. Vote: 11-4
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation, with an additional stipulation and deletion of a stipulation.
Motion Discussion: There was discussion about the removal of Stipulation No. 9 regarding the
requirement for the public access easement along the southern portion of the site.
Motion details: Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve Z-12-21-2, per the Paradise
Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation with the additional stipulation as read into
the record and the deletion of Stipulation No. 9.
Maker: Gaynor
Second: Mangum
Vote: 6-1 (Busching)
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result is a more
walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment.
2. The proposed development will provide additional housing options close to employers
in and designated Major Employment Centers that will contribute to a mix of housing
types in in the area and additional housing in the City.
Page 581
3. At the staff recommended height, the project is similar in scale and intensity to other
deployments within the Scottsdale Road corridor and larger Kierland area.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the final
narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET
OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell Road, that
directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the street. All
pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale and the
use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section 1305.3.a. in
the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
e. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 110 feet, inclusive E
of non-dwelling space utilized for resident amenities location on the roof deck.
fe. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use Map as
an exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations, siting the
companion GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70 feet of right-of-way for the south half of Bell
Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study had
been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements and right-
of-way dedications may be required as identified in the approved traffic study.
Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with these improvements
and dedications.
Page 582
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final site
plan approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and that the
development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If temporary
equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the permanent structure a
separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and a “No Hazard Determination”
obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COLLABORATE WITH THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR A REFUGE
LANE IN THE MEDIAN WEST BOUND ON BELL ROAD AT 71st STREET.
9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE
SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC ACCESS FROM THE SITE TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD.
9. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER
SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING
APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 583
Attachment F
David O Simmons
From: David Phelps
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 8:52 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village meeting
Hello David,
My name is David Phelps and I own the Breakfast Joynt at 64th street and bell and I would like to pledge my support for
the new high rise going in at Scottsdale rd and Bell. Let me know what I need to do
Thanks
Dave
Page 584
David O Simmons
From: farid samiei
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:40 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: The Hampton Group
Hello Mr. Simmons,
This is Farid Samiei. I am the manager at the Caspian Food Market which is located at 17040 N Scottsdale Road #108. I
just wanted to let you know that I won't be able to attend today's meeting at 6pm but I would support the Hampton Group,
INC.
Thank you,
Farid
Page 585
David O Simmons
From: Mike Redfern
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village Building
David,
On behalf of the Jackson’s company, I not only approve of the residential building on Scottsdale and Bell, I am very
excited about it.
Mike Redfern
District Manager
Jacksons Food Stores
(480) 881-5457
mike.redfern@jacksons.com
Page 586
David O Simmons
From: Pam Azin
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 6:29 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale & Bell rd project
Regarding the gateway to Kierland project, as owner of Sina East center at 17040 N. Scottsdale Rd and the businesses it
houses, I would just like to voice support for the new project.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 587
David O Simmons
From: Ryan O'Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:58 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale and Bell Luxury Development
Hello, My name is Ryan O ‘Daniel and I am a resident at 6418 East Claire Dr, Scottsdale 85254. I encourage the Village to
support this project. Many people do not want the hassle of owning a single family home. They like the lock and leave
lifestyle. This project with all its luxury amenities and desirable location, is perfect for many young business
professionals and also older adults looking to downsize.
Ryan O'Daniel
Principal
Intrepid Public Affairs
(602) 332-2039
Page 588
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous
of them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov”. When did the COP allow developers to use their email
address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the
project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zoning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Page 589
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
Page 590
David O Simmons
From: Wood, Nick
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:46 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren; Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: Re: Hampton Group Project
Good afternoon Mr. Warren.
My apologies, but I believe you are misconstruing the language referencing the “must” be approved.
If you read the remainder of the sentence, I believe that it clearly points out that this project may not go forward
without the approval the City Council. There’s nothing presumptuous about that statement, it is nothing more than a
statement of the legal requirements for this project to be developed.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the Optima Kierland project. Not only did I represent Optima with respect to that zoning
case, but I also live there.
As to your comments regarding infrastructure, while the existing infrastructure is more than adequate to handle the
development that will be heard tonight, in the event any developments requires additional infrastructure, the
developers required to install that additional infrastructure at it’s own cost and expense. For example, Optima was
required to upsize the sewer lines to serve buildings three and four.
Finally, sharing Mr. Simmon’s email address with everyone, is a courtesy, to assist you in sharing your thoughts with Mr.
Simmons, who is the village planner on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
In any event, I strongly encourage you to sign up and speak about your objections to this project tonight. Even though
you strongly oppose this project (and Optima), I believe that everyone’s voice should be heard.
Kind regards,
Nick
Nicholas J. Wood
Snell & Wilmer
400 East Van Buren Street
Phoenix, Arizona, 85004
Office: 602-382-6269
Cell: 602-451-2255
Fax: 602-382-6070
nwood@swlaw.com
Albuquerque, Boise, Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Cabos, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Reno, Salt
Lake City, San Diego, Seattle, Tucson, Washington DC The information contained in this electronic mail message is
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
Page 591
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at
602.382.6000, and delete the original message. Thank you.
On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:32 PM, David O Simmons wrote:
[EXTERNAL] david.simmons@phoenix.gov
________________________________
Mr. Warren,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-12-21-2 and GPA-PV-1-21-2. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
concerns.
The cases are scheduled to go to Village for a Formal Recommendation on October 4, 2021 (tonight).
Please register for the virtual meeting by clicking on the link on the attached agenda if you wish to attend.
I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
public hearing process.
The applicants Hearing Draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-caseszoning/pzservices/pud-cases>
The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2)
Lastly, staff formulates the first level of recommendation solely based on land use policy. The Village Planning
Committee formulates the second recommendation and the Planning Commission formulates a third recommendation.
given rezoning request.
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Page 592
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous of
them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov”. When did the COP
allow developers to use their email address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zo ning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
<100421a.pdf>
Page 593
David O Simmons
From: THOMAS STERN
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 2:54 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel; Moran, Taylor N.; Wood, Nick
Subject: Re: Scottsdale & Bell
[EXTERNAL] tstern007@aol.com
Hi David,
In doing more research about this project and the subject of possible “alleged” payments to the neighbors as I indicated
to you, I find that I am completely wrong about it and I am very sorry that I made the statement. It did not happen at all
or in any way that I believed. This is totally my fault for the way that I communicated about something that I was
passionate about.
If you have forwarded my comments to anyone, please let them know that I assumed something that just was not true.
Again, I am sorry for creating the confusion. I sincerely apologize to you, the Planning Committee, Nick Wood and his
client.
Regards,
Tom Stern
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 5, 2021, at 8:12 AM, David O Simmons wrote:
>
> Mr. Stern,
>
> Thank you for reaching out. The Scottsdale & Bell PUD case has not been scheduled for public hearings for formal
recommendation. However, The case will be heard for Information Only at the April 5, 2021 Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee meeting. If you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee virtual meeting,
please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at david.simmons@phoenix.gov at
least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Please indicate the item number on the agenda if you wish to speak.
>
> I have also cc’d the applicant in the event you have questions for them.
>
> I have attached the agenda for your reference.
>
> Staff will provide hearing dates for recommendation once the applicant submits a hearing draft of their development
narrative. Once the hearing dates have been set and if you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee virtual meeting, please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at
david.simmons@phoenix.gov at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Staff will make every effort to
accommodate requests to speak submitted beyond the 48 hour period. Due to the added demands of facilitating the
virtual environment for the public, applicants and other staff members, we cannot consider any request less than six
business hours before the start of the meeting.
>
> I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
Page 594
public hearing process.
>
> The applicants 1st review development narrative is available for review on the City’s website:
> https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-case
>
> The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2).
>
> Please let me know if you have additional comments or concerns.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> David Simmons, MA
> Planner II* Village Planner
> 200 West Washington Street
> 3rd Floor
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> 602-262-4072
> david.simmons@phoenix.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: THOMAS STERN
> Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 2:52 PM
> To: David O Simmons
> Subject: Scottsdale & Bell
>
> Hi David,
>
> Re: GPA-PV-1-21-2
> Z-12-21-2
>
> We understand that this project will be presented to Planning Committee by Nick Wood on Monday night on behalf of
Hampton Group. We were told that this application is for informational purposes and is not in final design form.
>
> Please be aware that Landmark Condominium Association 15802 N 71st Street will vehemently object to this project in
its present form. We object to height, density, setbacks, traffic flow and proximity violation.
>
> We are also aware that the current owners have “ALLEGEDLY” offered payments to the immediate neighbors (CVS, the
Jackson’s Car Wash and the Chevron Gas Station) if they do not object to the project. We understand that this is a
common occurrence, but if true, we want it disclosed to Planning Committee.
>
> Finally, Kierland Community Alliance (KCA) also objects to this project in its present form.
>
> For the record, KCA and Landmark met with Nick Wood, Noel Griemsmann and Hampton last Tuesday. We told them
that we would support tasteful development on the site. Hampton did not appear willing to work with us.
>
> I will provide you with more information when we know what their final submission is.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Stern
>
> Sent from my iPad
Page 595
Report
(Scottsdale & Bell Road PUD) - Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road (Ordinance G-6929)
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-12-21-2 and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily and commercial uses. This is a
companion case and should be heard following GPA-PV-1-21-2.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.56 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential and commercial uses.
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Applicant: John H. Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc.
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Apr. 5,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Oct.
4, 2021 and recommended approval with modifications and additional stipulations, by
a vote of 11-4.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional and deleted stipulation, by a vote of 6-1.
Location
Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 16630 and 16640 N. Scottsdale Road.
Page 341
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 342
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-12-21-2) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.56-acre site located on the southwest
corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road in a portion of Section 3, Township 3 North,
Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “C-
2” (Intermediate Commercial District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development 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 343
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 Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the
final narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on or within 50 feet
of Scottsdale Road and one on or within 50 feet of Bell Road, that
directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented
scale and the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per
Section 1305.3.a. in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
d. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use
Map as an exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations,
siting the companion GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70 feet of right-of-way for the south half
of Bell Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
had been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements
Page 344
and right-of-way dedications may be required as identified in the approved
traffic study. Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with
these improvements and dedications.
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final
site plan approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and
that the development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If
temporary equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the
permanent structure a separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA
and a “No Hazard Determination” obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. The developer shall collaborate with the Street Transportation Department to
review the potential for a refuge lane in the median west bound on Bell Road at
71st Street.
9. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
Page 345
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 346
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-12-21-2
PARCEL "C", AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT OF PRINCESS CROSSING,
RECORDED IN BOOK 445 OF MAPS, PAGE 18 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING WITHIN THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
The above described parcel contains 2.56 acres.
Page 347
Page 348
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-12-21-2
Scottsdale and Bell PUD
September 30, 2021
Paradise Valley Village Planning October 4, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 4, 2021
Request From: C-2 (2.56 acres)
Request To: PUD (2.56 acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Unit Development to allow
multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road
Owners: Bell 166, LLC
Applicant: John H Berry, The Hampton Group
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Industrial
Proposed (GPA-PV-1-21-2): Mixed Use
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
(Commercial/Commerce/Business
Park/Residential 15+ dwelling units per
acre)
Major
Scottsdale Road 65 and 68-foot west half street
Arterial
Street Map Major
Bell Road 67-foot south half street
Classification Arterial
Private
71st Street 30-foot street
Street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES GOAL;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to employment
centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation alternatives exist.
Page 349
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
The proposed Scottsdale and Bell Planned Unit Development (PUD) supports increased
intensity by proposing multifamily residential that is compatible in scale and intensity with
the surrounding Scottsdale Road corridor. The development is located in a mixed-use
corridor where nearby properties are multifamily or commercial. The project site is also
within a designated employment center. The concentration of people near employment
uses promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses. The requested PUD will
facilitate ongoing investment and development of the greater Kierland area and
Scottsdale Road corridor.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPILE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The Scottsdale and Bell PUD proposes landscaping around all four sides of the building.
Detached sidewalks along Scottsdale Road and Bell Road framed with landscape strips
will provide thermal comfort for pedestrians. The PUD also requires that a minimum of 75
percent of public pedestrian pathways be shaded.
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should be designed to included convenient bicycle parking.
The proposed development will provide bicycle parking for both residents and guests.
The project also is in close proximity to a multi-use trail along the CAP Canal, along the
north side of Bell Road, and will support residents who prefer using alternative modes of
transportation to get to work or nearby entertainment.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Desert Ridge and Kierland Employment
Center – See background item No. 5 below.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See background item No. 8
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See background item No. 9
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See background item No. 10
Zero Waste PHX – See background item No. 11
Housing Phoenix Plan – See background item No. 12
Page 350
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Commercial Retail C-2
South Convenient Store C-2
North (across R1-14 and C-2
Hotel
Bell Road)
East (across Planned Regional Center (PRC) (City
Commercial Office/Shopping
Scottsdale of Scottsdale)
Center
Road)
West Commercial Retail C-2
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 2.56-acre site located on the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. The request is to rezone from C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses.
2. The subject site consists of one parcel that is under the ownership of Bell 166, LLC.
The site currently contains one one-story commercial retail building with surface
parking. The subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix on October 15, 1961. At
that time the subject site and the surrounding area vastly consisted of vacant land. The
current C-2 zoning designation was established through Annexation No. G-438.
Maricopa County Historical Aerials indicate that the subject site began to develop in
approximately 1996. The surrounding sites began to develop in approximately 1998.
The proposed PUD will require the developer to provide updated infrastructure as
needed and determined through the Planning and Development Department’s site
development process.
Historic Aerials, Source: Maricopa County Assessor’s Office
Page 351
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Industrial. The
proposal is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation but is
consistent with current land uses in the area. A companion General Plan Amendment
request (GPA-PV-1-21-2) proposes a Mixed Use land use designation of
(Commercial/Commerce/Business Park/Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre). This
Mixed Use designation will allow flexibility for residential and commercial land uses to
locate on any portion of the site in compliance with the PUD’s development standards.
The General Plan Land Use Map designation on three sides of the subject parcel is
also Industrial. To the north, across Bell Road, the General Plan Land Use Map
designation is Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned. To the east, across Scottsdale
Road, is the City of Scottsdale. The City of Scottsdale’s General Plan Land Use Map
designation is Mixed Use Neighborhoods/Regional Use District.
General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
Page 352
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES
4. North
The property to the north of the subject site, across Bell Road is the CAP Canal,
zoned R1-14. Beyond the CAP Canal to the north is a hotel zoned C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) approved through Rezoning Case No. Z-60-1996.
South
Directly south of the subject site is a one-story gas station/convenience store zoned
C-2 through Annexation No. G-438.
East
Directly to the east, across Scottsdale Road, sits the Frank Lloyd Wright spire on the
hard corner and a four story commercial mixed use building containing commercial
offices and a restaurant space, all of which are located within the City of Scottsdale
municipal
boundary.
West
West of the
subject site is a
one-story
commercial retail
building zoned C-
2 (Intermediate
Commercial),
approved through
Annexation No. G-
438.
Surrounding Zoning, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 353
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
5. The subject site falls within the boundaries of
the Maricopa Association of Governments
designated Desert Ridge/Kierland major
employment center and City of Phoenix
designated employment center.
A mix of housing types
are encouraged in employment
centers and commercial corridors.
The Desert Ridge/Kierland
employment center profile provided by the
Development Department identifies that the
Kierland area is comprised of a highly
educated, executive, and professional
workforce with a large inventory of Class A
office space. Providing additional Employment Center Map, Source: City of Phoenix
residential options in close proximity to Planning and Development Department
the nearby office spaces will add to the
sustainability of the established employment center and the Kierland area overall.
PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation. The 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 writes a document proposing standards and guidelines that are
tailored to the context of a site on a case by case basis.
Where the Scottsdale and Bell PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement,
the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions shall be applied.
7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described in the
attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped September 14, 2021. The
proposed standards were designed to allow for a multifamily development that
continues enhancement along the Scottsdale Road and Bell Road intersection for a
more pedestrian-friendly environment.
List of Uses
The Development Narrative proposes a number of permitted uses. The proposed uses
consist of the permitted C-2 zoning uses found in Sections 623 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, with some prohibited uses. Additionally, multifamily residential is permitted
with a maximum of 255 residential dwelling units.
Page 354
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
The Development Narrative also proposes restricting certain uses that are inconsistent
with the Narrative's vision of mixed-use pedestrian oriented development.
Conceptual Site Plan
The development’s main access points are along Bell Road and the private drive
bordering the eastern boundary of the subject site, 71st Street. The project proposes a
141-foot tall multifamily building with a pedestal parking garage and roof deck. The
parking structure shall be screened with architectural embellishments consistent with
the primary façade. There are three amenity areas proposed and are reserved as
private common open space. One is located on the podium deck; one is located in the
outdoor courtyard near the building main entrance and the other is located on the roof
deck. Bell Road and Scottsdale Road will contain enhanced streetscapes with a
minimum eight-foot detached sidewalk framed by landscape areas that will include
trees, shrubs, and live ground cover.
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: The Hampton Group
Page 355
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Development Standards
The follow is a table of proposed development standards for the project.
a. Maximum Residential Unit
Count: Maximum Dwellings 255 dwelling units
Maximum Density 99.61 dwelling units per gross acre
b. Minimum Lot Width/Depth No Minimum
c. Minimum Building Setbacks From Property Line
North (Bell Road) 23 feet
West (Internal Property Line) 5 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 3 feet, 17-foot average
East (Scottsdale Road) 9 feet, 22-feet average
d. Minimum Landscape
Setbacks
North (Bell Road) 20 feet
West (71st Street) 5 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 0 feet
East (Scottsdale Road) 7 feet, 15-foot average
e. Maximum Building Height 141 feet, 159 feet for rooftop amenities (limited
to 40% of the total roof area)
f. Maximum Lot Coverage 65 percent of Total Net Site Area
g. Open Space Minimum 40 percent of net site area
The proposed maximum height of the project is 141 feet, 159 feet for rooftop amenities
(limited to 40% of the total roof area). The site is located along two major arterials and
transportation routes. The site is also located more than 185 feet to the nearest single-
family residential uses with no direct access to residential neighborhoods. Impact to
traffic on Scottsdale Road and Bell Road is also limited as the primary access point is
on 71st Street. The Bell Road access has a right turn in and right turn out restriction,
which helps to mitigate adverse impact on traffic on the major arterial.
Staff is recommending a modification to the proposed height in the development
narrative to 110 feet. The recommended height is based on the aforementioned site
characteristics and an attempt to be consistent with the building height of approved
projects to the south. This recommendation is reflected in Stipulation No. 1.e.
The greater Kierland area has seen a significant amount of investment the last 10
years. This investment has positioned the area south of Bell Road to approximately
Acoma Drive on the west side of Scottsdale Road as a corridor for mixed used and
mid-rise development. However, this rezoning request is the first of its kind in the
northern portion of the corridor. Based on the site's unique characteristics and location,
additional building height consistent with the applicant's proposal may ultimately be
determined to be appropriate as the community, Village Planning Committee and
Page 356
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Planning Commission evaluate this request and the companion General Plan
Amendment through the public hearing process.
The lot coverage proposed for the project is 65 percent. The additional lot coverage
beyond a typical multifamily project is offset by a generous open space standard of 40
percent and is consistent with other similar projects in the corridor. The C-2 standards
on open space for multifamily is 15 percent. Therefore, the open space proposed far
exceed ordinance standards and will serve as an amenity to residents and visitors.
The proposed Bell Road (northern) Open Space Plans, Source: The Hampton Group
building setback is 23 feet with a 20-
foot landscape setback.
Landscape Standards
The PUD proposes landscaping along all sides of the building. The Development
Narrative includes increased landscape setbacks adjacent to the Bell Road street
frontage. A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be provided along Bell Road.
The landscape areas will incorporate a mixture of 2 and 3 inch caliper trees along the
north, south and east. In addition to the trees, the developer shall install minimum 5
five-gallon drought tolerant shrubs and 75 percent live ground cover.
Page 357
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
The streetscape along Scottsdale Road will include a minimum eight-foot wide
detached sidewalk with a minimum
seven-foot wide landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb.
The streetscape along Bell Road will
include a minimum 8 foot sidewalk and
8 foot landscape strip. This is
comparable to other recently approved
projects in the area. The landscaping
will provide for a pedestrian-friendly
environment with 75 percent shade at
maturity along the sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways.
Conceptual Landscape Plan, Source: The Hampton Group
Parking Standards
The proposed parking requires
a minimum amount of parking
per unit in addition to
unreserved visitor parking. In
addition, the PUD proposes a
drop off and pick up location for
ride share services.
The PUD also proposes a
minimum of 0.25 bicycle
spaces per unit with a
maximum of 25 spaces which
will comply with Section
1307.H. of the City of Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
Parking Standards, Source: The Hampton Group
Fences/Walls
All site fences and walls will be consistent with Section 703.A of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. In addition, all screen walls shall include architectural detailing consistent
or complementary to the building facade.
Page 358
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Lighting Plan
All lighting will be consistent with the standards of Section 704 (Environmental
Performance Standards) Section 507 Tab A. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and
Section 23-100 of the City Code.
Design Guidelines and Standards
The Development Narrative includes design standards that promote pedestrian
circulation on and around the site. The graphic below illustrates the proposed
pedestrian network for the site.
Design standards ensure that the building Pedestrian Circulation Plan, Source: The
Hampton Group
facade will contain 60 percent glazing to
exclude the ground floor garage screening, 10
percent masonry, 70 percent metal and at least two other materials. Elevations of the
building will provide one private balcony per unit. The garage on the ground level,
adjacent to public right-of-way, will be screened with architectural metal panels and
extrusions, translucent glazing which gives the illusion of a commercial store front and
decorative lighting in an effort ot create visual interest for pedestrians and to enhance
Page 359
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
the street frontages as depicted in the graphic below. All building elevations have
undulating floor edges, which results in visual interest. The final elevations and building
plans submitted to the City will incorporate the provisions outlined in the development
narrative and shall follow the Design Guidelines of Section 507.Tab A of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
The development narrative includes standards for the parking structure screening.
Parking structures will be screened with architectural material consistent with the
primary building façade as outlined in the development narrative. The landscape
design shall have a uniformed streetscape design and a uniform perimeter design.
Several residential amenities are also proposed, which are outlined below.
Conceptual Elevations, Source: The Hampton Group
Entry Court and Water Feature Grove
The PUD proposes a minimum 9,000 square foot entry court and minimum 2,500
square foot water feature grove near the main entry of the building off of the private
access road, 71st Street. The entry court shall include four of the following features:
• Seating/benches
• Shaded outdoor dining area
• Public art feature
• Shade canopy
• Decorative pavers
Page 360
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
• Trellis and landscape areas
The water feature grove, located within the entry court, shall include a shade canopy of
trees and seating to provide a comfortable pedestrian/tenant environment and include
three of the following:
• Seating/benches
• Movable dining tables and chairs
• Outdoor dining area
• Shade canopy
Amenities
The PUD proposes amenities intended for use by residents and guests to include a
clubhouse no less than 3,000 square feet, fitness center no less than 4,000 square
feet, shared workspace no less than 2,000 square feet, indoor wellness space no less
than 500 square feet, indoor event space no less than 4,000 square feet, roof deck
swimming pool and/or spa with at least three of the following:
• Lounge deck
• Shaded outdoor dining area
• Water features
• Barbeque grills
• Fire features
• Seating nodes
• Trellis areas
Signage
The proposed sign standards shall comply with Section 705 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Sustainability
The Development Narrative proposes several options to incorporate sustainability
principals including drought tolerant landscaping, LED lighting, and recycling
receptacles. The project also proposes retaining established trees where possible
along Bell Road and Scottsdale Road, as well as the utilization of smart controller drip
irrigation.
Page 361
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
PUD Compatibility to Zoning Ordinance
All property boundaries adjacent to public streets will include enhanced landscaping
with eight-foot wide detached sidewalks. Shade at 75 percent coverage at maturity will
be provided to increase pedestrian comfort and activity. The open space standards are
greater, requiring a minimum of 40 percent of the total net site area. The PUD
landscape setbacks proposed along Bell Road are greater compared to the minimum
requirement of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and require that 25 percent of trees be a
minimum of two-inch caliper and 75 percent be three-inch caliper.
Phasing
The project will be constructed in one phase.
Additional Requirements
In addition to the modification of the maximum height in Stipulation No. 1.e, staff is
recommended several updates to the development narrative for consistency and
enhanced building design.
The applicant will be required to submit an updated development narrative after City
Council approval reflecting Final Draft. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1 a.
A comparative zoning standards table was not included in the hearing draft of the PUD
document. Staff is requiring this in the Final Narrative. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 1 b.
In an effort to further activate the street frontages along Bell Road and Scottsdale
Road, staff is recommending the developer incorporate building entrances along both
Major Arterials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1 c.
A General Plan Land Use Map was not included int eh exhibit section of the Hearing
Draft. Staff is requiring a general Plan Land Use Map be added to the Final Draft. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 1 f.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
8. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. In addition, a vision in the master plan is to raise awareness by
leading by example. The proposal includes landscaped pedestrian walking paths, open
space areas and greater planting standards than otherwise required by the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
9. 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,
Page 362
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
and connected transportation system to include all modes, such as bicycles,
pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. There are proposed detached sidewalks adjacent to
the public streets and pathways throughout the site which provides a safer and more
comfortable pedestrian experience.
10. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan also supports options for both short-and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. The proposal requires bicycle parking spaces be provided on the site.
Bicycle racks shall consist of an inverted-U or other decorative design and installed per
the requirements of Section 1307. H. of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
11. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of recycling
containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments meeting certain
criteria. The provision of recycling is addressed in the PUD narrative.
12. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This Plan
contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with a vision
of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for
residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid population growth and
housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000 new housing units.
Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason why
housing costs are increasing. The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of
preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety
housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using
vacant land in a more sustainable fashion.
This proposal will help to meet the goals of the housing plan by reducing the gap
between housing units and number of people moving to the region.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time the staff report was written, staff had received twenty one letters of concern.
Concerns include a perceived increase in traffic, building height, character of area
changing, population density increases, lack of activation on streets frontages, loss of
commercial spaces in area, overabundance of multifamily projects in area,
infrastructure capacity concerns and size of proposed building on such a small lot.
Staff has also received 169 letters of support. Support comments include a welcomed
enhancement to the Kierland area, the proposed project will enhance and maintain a
Page 363
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
high quality of living in the area, the proposed project will bring in a built-in customer
base to existing commercial uses in the Kierland area and Scottsdale Road corridor,
the project will replace an underutilized and outdated “gateway” corner, reduction in
traffic and the project will enhance aesthetics of the corner by providing lush
landscaping and a pedestrian friendly experience.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department has proposed stipulations requiring that all
streets within and adjacent to the development be constructed with all mandatory
elements, the developer shall also dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way for the south half of
Bell Road and no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until a Traffic Impact
Study/Statement is reviewed and approved by the City. These are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
14. The City of Scottsdale Aviation Department expressed concern with the location of this
project as it relates to the airports flight paths and the 55 and 60 DNL noise contours of
Scottsdale Airport. The City of Scottsdale comments and proposed stipulations were
provided to the City of Phoenix Aviation Department for review.
16. The City of Phoenix Aviation Department has noted that the site is within the
Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) traffic pattern airspace, therefore, the developer
shall provide notice to prospective purchasers of the existence and operation
characteristics of the Scottsdale Airport and shall provide documentation that Form
7460-1 from the FAA. The requirements are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 5 and 6.
17. The Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems with this case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.
18. The Public Transit Department has proposed stipulations requiring that right-of-way be
dedicated, and a bus stop pad be constructed along Scottsdale Road, that the bus
stop be shaded at 50 percent. Further, all pedestrian paths and drive isles shall be
constructed with decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete or other pavement
treatments that contrast with adjacent surfaces and be shaded by 75 percent with
vegetative shade at maturity. These are addressed in the development narrative.
19. The Water Services Department has noted the property has existing water and sewer
mains that can potentially serve the proposed development. However, there is
potential need to up size existing water and sewer infrastructure mains so that any
remodels or new buildings will be able to meet domestic and fire code requirements.
OTHER
20. 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
Page 364
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess
the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
21. 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 proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result is a more
walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment.
2. The proposed development will provide additional housing options close to employers
and designated Major Employment Centers that will contribute to a mix of housing
ytypes in in the area and additional housing in the City.
3. At the staff recommended height, the project is similar in scale and intensity to other
deployments within the Scottsdale Road corridor and larger Kierland area.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date information
on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the final
narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on Scottsdale Road and one
on Bell Road, that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to
the street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale
and the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section
Page 365
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
1305.3.a. in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
e. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 110 feet, inclusive of non-
dwelling space utilized for resident amenities location on the roof deck.
f. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use Map as an
exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations, siting the companion
GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70-feet of right-of-way for the south half of Bell
Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study had
been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements and right-of-
way dedications may be required as identified in the approved traffic study.
Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with these improvements
and dedications.
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final site plan
approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and that the
development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If temporary
equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the permanent structure a
separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and a “No Hazard Determination”
obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 366
Staff Report: Z-12-21-2
September 30, 2021
Writer
David Simmons
September 30, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning Sketch Map
Zoning Aerial Map
Community correspondence (201 pages)
Scottsdale & Bell PUD Development Narrative
Page 367
R-3A *
C-2 *
SCOTTSDALE RD
Z-61-96
Z-60-96
R1-14
B E LL
RD
C-2 * CITY
OF
Z-70-97 71S T
ST SCOTTSDALE
C-2 *
Phoenix City Limits
IND.PK.* Z-139-86
Z-167-87
Z-82-79
CP/GCP
PCD *
Z-11-C-75
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101 Z-12-21
Miles UNION HILLS DR
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
PARADISE VILLAGE
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
John H Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc
APPLICANT'S NAME:
FROM:
C-2 ( 2.56 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
2/25/2021
Z-12-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
2.56 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 36-44 M-12 TO: PUD ( 2.56 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 37 44
PUD 233 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-12-21.mxd
Page 368
R-3A *
C-2 *
SCOTTSDALE RD
Z-61-96
Z-60-96
R1-14
B E LL
RD
C-2 * CITY
OF
Z-70-97 71S T
ST SCOTTSDALE
C-2 *
Phoenix City Limits
IND.PK.* Z-139-86
Z-167-87
Z-82-79
CP/GCP
PCD *
Z-11-C-75
Maricopa County Assessor's
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101 Z-12-21
Miles UNION HILLS DR
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
PARADISE VILLAGE
GREENWAY RD
THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
John H Berry, The Hampton Group, Inc
APPLICANT'S NAME:
FROM:
C-2 ( 2.56 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
2/25/2021
Z-12-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
2.56 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 36-44 M-12 TO: PUD ( 2.56 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 37 44
PUD 233 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-12-21.mxd
Page 369
In Response to Scottsdale & Bell
Case No. Z-12-21-2
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Comments and Concerns
Architecture
The architectural vernacular chosen for this project is commendable.
However, we strongly request the following comments, concerns and suggestions be included in your
decision-making regarding the rezoning case for the SWC of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Comments and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and height requests:
- Rezoning from the current C-2 zoning to a PUD cannot be considered a minor rezoning. The request to
increase the maximum height from 56’ to 156’ with an increase of dwelling units from 44 to 255 is way
too much for this corner. The mass of the proposed building would not form a gateway but a blockade.
- The claim that this development could be the gateway to the Kierland area is farfetched since Kierland
is ± 0.93 miles further south.
- The height and mass of the proposed building will not compliment the 125’ high FLW Spire, but will
compete and dwarf it.
- Exhibit I is a map of the existing context and also shows future and current under development
projects. None of these projects, either office or residential, are remotely close to the requested height
and number of floors.
Comments and concerns regarding programming:
- The proposed programming shows no retail or public activity on street level on either Bell Road or
Scottsdale Road. Instead, it will be a screened parking garage over the first two floors. This is highly
undesirable on, what is described by the developer as a “significant intersection”. Unfortunately, this
seems to be the trend. Retail and food establishments will be taken down and will slowly, as
development continues along Scottsdale Road corridor, result in a dead and inactive streetscape.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 370
Suggestions to consider:
A strict limit on height.
There should be a gradual increase in height along the Scottsdale road corridor, starting at The Courtyard with
3 stories North of the Canal along Bell Road, to the 12 story Optima Kierland Buildings.
The height limit/reduction to 6 floors would bring the following benefits.
- Less of a barrier/wall and a more friendly gesture while traveling south on Scottsdale Road.
- Less visible from the neighboring single-family developments to the West.
- A better integration with its surrounding developments. Exhibit I
- A better dialog with the FLW Spire across Scottsdale Road.
A change in program
A reduction in height and thus number of dwellings results in a reduction in the need for parking. This opens
up the possibility for retail/restaurants on street level which will enhance the activity and liveliness of this
important and prominent corner and with that can really become a grand introduction/gateway to the
Kierland area.
A section of the new proposed program and number of floors
Level 6: Residential
Level 5: Residential
Level 4: Residential
Level 3: Residential
Level 2: Parking
Level 1 (Street): Retail/Food and Lobby for Residential
Basement 1: Parking
Basement 2: Parking
Conclusion:
As the developer mentions in his description “The Kierland area is a highly desirable part of Phoenix due to its
proximity to a number of high-end urban amenities” and “The project provides an opportunity to redevelop a
simple 1-story retail building located at this significant intersection with high quality residential development
that will add an architectural statement on the Phoenix side of Scottsdale Road, with an overall goal of framing
this critical route and enhancing the Kierland area to the south”
Let’s treat this corner the way it deserves.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 371
Exhibit I
Context Map
Existing, Currently Under Development and Future Projects
Along Scottsdale Road
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 372
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 373
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 8:03 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: emdist2 - Form Submission
Good Morning David,
Please add to the public record.
Thank you,
Christine
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:54 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Denise Kamber
SUBJECT : Proposed 14 story building at Scottsdale and Bell Roads
MESSAGE : Good Morning Councilman Waring,
It has come to my attention that there is a proposal to bui ld a fourteen story building at the corner of Scottsdale and Bell
Roads. I live at 64th Street & Bell and am very concerned about this proposal. The intersection of Scottsdale and Bell
Roads is an extremely busy intersection. I will often go out of my way to avoid it. Building a fourteen story building will
only add to this congestion.
There are currently two five story apartment buildings going up just west of Scottsdale Road, north of Kierland. There is
also a large development going in at Tatum and Bell. This area has already become overly congested in the 11 years I
have lived here. I do not want to see my neighborhood become even more congested. The traffic congestion and
accidents along Bell Road are an issue and building another high rise will just contribute to this issue.
As a result, I respectfully request that you please reject this proposal for the good of our beautiful city. Thank you for
taking the time to address my concerns.
Sincerely,
Denise Kamber
Email : denisekamber@yahoo.com
AREA : 480
PHONE : 4335527
ADDRESS : 6501 E Kelton LN
Page 374
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: b38b9d6c4bd54713bbb8076752364322
Form Submission On : 5/19/2021 7:54:18 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 375
David O Simmons
From: Elaine Faraci
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:58 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Bell & Scottsdale
As a resident of Greenbriar East, I am writing to express my deep concern for this building. It is WAY oversize, taller than
all the buildings in the area and will bring too much traffic to an already crowded intersection. Please consider the size
and scope of problems this building will have on our community, I also do not understand how a building so tall can be
erected so near the airport. Please do not let this EYESORE be built. In comparison to the Kierland complex several
blocks away it is awful looking. Thank you for your consideration in tis matter.
Elaine Faraci, 6909 East Kings Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85254 (480 348 2599) elainecf4@yahoo.com
Page 376
David O Simmons
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 8:35 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Hi David, Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 12:15 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Elaine Faraci
Email : elainecf4@yahoo.com
Comments : As a resident of Greenbriar East, I m writing to beg you, the city of Phoenix and all involved to reconsider
the approval of the monstrous apartment under consideration at the Scottsdale and Bell Roads intersection. It is way,
way oversized for the corner, larger than any other building in the area and will have a detrimental affect on an already
over burdened intersection. Aside from being oversized it is not at all attractive and belongs in the heart of a city and
not in our residential area. There are thousands of apartments being built in our area that conform in size and elevation
to the surrounding buildings. Why allow this ugly oversized building to be built. Please, please reconsider approval of
this building. Thank you, Elaine Faraci, 6909 E. Kings Ave, 85254
Submission ID: f475652959c44870807362eb7061e00e
Form Submission On : 4/18/2021 12:15:18 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 377
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:08 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: New construction & rezoning.
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 8:49 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : David Frei
SUBJECT : New construction & rezoning.
MESSAGE : I am opposed to the Cities of Phoenix & Scottsdale allowing the new construction of apartment buildings &
14 story high rise multi family use buildings.
There is a severe water shortage in our area & some are already talking about possible water shortages and water
restrictions for the area.
Why punish the people who have lived here for years by allowing all of this new construction?
This is NOT progress, this is self destruction by large corporations that due not even shop, live or pay taxes in the areas
they are developed.
Email : scdlfreis@gmail.com
AREA : 480
PHONE : 3615939
ADDRESS : 6741 E Aire Libre Ln
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: b50a175fd5a84f369d9f56c60d587623
Form Submission On : 4/25/2021 8:49:02 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 378
David O Simmons
From: Gary Coleshill
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:39 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Fwd: Scottsdale & Bell Case No. Z-12-21-2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Regards
Gary Coleshill
President
Coleshill & Associates & Elite Pro Speakers
1-888-894-2929
[eliteprospeakers.com]www.eliteprospeakers.com [eliteprospeakers.com]
To help
protect y our
priv acy ,
Micro so ft
Office
prev ented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gary Coleshill
Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:22 PM
Subject: Scottsdale & Bell Case No. Z-12-21-2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL
ROAD
To:
Hi David,
I just saw plans for the above development and frankly I`m shocked.
That development is way too big to be crammed into that area.
That corner is already a traffic nightmare, and will be made much much worse with this monstrosity adding 500 cars plus
per day to the traffic.
This building is too big, and too ugly for the area.
What is the proper procedure to oppose this project, or is it too late?
Regards
Gary Coleshill
480 607 0294
Page 379
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: Building on the SW corner of Scottsdale & Bell Rds
From: Diane Griffith
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 1:32 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Building on the SW corner of Scottsdale & Bell Rds
Hi, Councilman Waring. I am a resident in the neighborhood adjacent to where this proposed monstrosity will
be going. I have lived in this neighborhood for 20 years. While I understand that building is inevitable, I have
huge concerns regarding not only the effect on traffic on Bell Rd, but also the overall height. Prior to
purchasing our current home, I did research into the zoning, and am aware that the location is zoned to allow
a maximum of 4 stories. This proposed building is seeking to build 14 stories. Again while I am open to
building, I would ask for your consideration into the proposed height of the building and ask that you move
toward not allowing this height of a structure in our neighborhood. Thank you -
Diane Griffith, FCLS, CIFI, MBA
Senior Special Investigator
Special Investigations Unit
Farmers Insurance Exchange
24000 N Farmers Way
Phoenix, AZ 85085
480) 406-1463 cell
855) 856-2294 fax
COVID-19 Notice – In light of the national health emergency, I am currently working from home. I can be reached by
telephone and e-mail; my phone number and email address have not changed. Email communications are preferred to
avoid any potential delays caused by mailing. If you are unable to use email and hard copies of communications are
required, they may be sent to our National Document Center at P.O. Box 268994, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8994. We
are unable to receive deliveries at any location from FedEx, UPS or any other courier at this time, as our Claims office
locations have been temporarily closed.
Page 380
***** PLEASE NOTE ***** This E-Mail/telefax message and any documents accompanying this transmission may
contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above. If you are
not the intended addressee/recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or
reliance on the contents of this E-Mail/telefax information is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action against
you. Please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission and immediately delete/destroy the message and
any accompanying documents. Thank you.*****
*******
Page 381
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: Scottsdale and Bell HIGH-RISE
From: joan kiser
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 1:06 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Scottsdale and Bell HIGH-RISE
I don't know what you people are thinking but this is the LAST thing that we need in our neighborhood. Traffic
is already a nightmare in that area and the airport is so close!
it's already too congested and too dense. It's just an ill-conceived idea that will destroy our neighborhood.
I beg of you to re-consider this.
Joan Kiser
*******
Page 382
David O Simmons
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:45 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: zoning PUD
David Please respond to customer. Thanks Vikki Zoning
From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:38 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: zoning PUD
Good afternoon,
Please see email below from customer.
Thank you
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:00 PM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd - Form Submission
FROM : James mailloux
SUBJECT : Hampton Group application for SW corner of Bell & Scottsdale road
MESSAGE : I understand a zoning PUD proposal has been submitted for this site. I would like to know how to access this
application and what will be the schedule for the opportunity for public comment? What I read bout this projects leads
me to have some initial concerns.
Wayne Mailloux
President, Kierland Community Alliance
Email : lonewaynger@me.com
AREA : 203
PHONE : 2474199
ADDRESS : 7120 E Kierland Blvd. unit 1207
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Page 383
David O Simmons
From: Alan Stephenson
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 1:12 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC; Christine M Pedersen; David O Simmons
Subject: RE: emdist2 - Form Submission
David,
Please see below and respond to the resident and copy Christine and myself.
Thanks,
Alan
Alan Stephenson
Planning and Development Director
alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov
(602) 262-6656
FOR DIRECT CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PDD SECTIONS AND STAFF:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/contact-us
FOR EPR TIPS AND STEP BY STEP PROCEDURES: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/onlineservices/electronic-
plan-review
FOR OTHER DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
www.phoenix.gov/pdd
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:24 AM
To: Alan Stephenson
Subject: Fwd: emdist2 - Form Submission
Alan is this something you can provide?
Get Outlook for iOS
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:07:40 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Sean McCooy
SUBJECT : Requesting assistance in getting information on a proposed rezone and redevelopment
Page 384
MESSAGE : Hello, Jim -
As you know, there is a substantial residential building proposal on the table for the Southwest corner of Scottsdale and
Bell / Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. I watched the developer's presentation a few weeks ago and am wondering how I can
either get copies of, or review, the physical specifics of the development. This would include things like physical
dimensions, capacity, percentage of lot under roof, auto/traffic/parking projections, water source and usage projections,
sewage treatment location and flow projections as well as the revisions needed to the Comp Plan to facilitate this
development.
Your assistance or direction as to where I could get this information would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks very much,
Sean McCoy
Email : sean@smccoytax.com
AREA : 602
PHONE : 954-9683
ADDRESS : p o box 12757
CITY : Scottadale
STATE : az
ZIP : 85267
Submission ID: e59d94b240b94b8da8db5557d7304f10
Form Submission On : 5/11/2021 8:07:40 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 385
David O Simmons
From: Marty Mogalian
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 4:15 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: updates re Kierland area
Hi David,
My wife and I attended the online public meeting that was scheduled 04/05/21 at 6 p.m. regarding GPA-PV-1-21-2
(there was also a reference to a companion case # Z-12-21-2). This pertained to the southwest corner of Scottsdale RD
and Bell RD. That same evening there was a discussion regarding case # Z-63-20-2 & GPA-PV-1-20-2. This pertained to
the 7.14 acres at Greenway PKWY and Kierland BLVD.
My understanding per the PV Village Planning Committee members that evening suggested a decision by the committee
would be determined within 2 - 3 months which puts it at June or July regarding the Scottsdale and Bell RD request from
C-2 to PUD. Is that correct?
With regards to Greenway PKWY and Kierland BLVD, I could not tell if on the evening of 04/05/21 if the committee
formally approved that request or if that is still yet to be determined?
Any response is greatly appreciated. I first called and left you a voice message from my cell phone which is 602-448-
9234. You can certainly ignore that if you see this first. Thank you.
Marty Mogalian
6703 E Beverly LN
Scottsdale AZ 85254
--
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
What's Your Home Worth? [bhhsaz.findbuyers.com]
Get three automated Estimates - Instantly.
No cost, and no obligation. [bhhsaz.findbuyers.com]
Page 386
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:08 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: 14 Story Building, Scottsdale and Bell.
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:12 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Natasha Noorda
SUBJECT : 14 Story Building, Scottsdale and Bell.
MESSAGE : Dear Mr. Waring,
I felt sick inside when I learned of the intention to build a 14 story building on the corner of Bell and Scottsdale Road. A
building of that magnitude would be a nightmare for traffic at an already busy intersection. Why would anyone allow a
neighborhood to be so destroyed by creating such an eyesore on that corner? It would look really ugly and reduce the
quality of life for this neighborhood, both visually and functionally. This should never be allowed.
Very truly,
Natasha Noorda
Email : Natashapn@cox.net
AREA : 85254
PHONE : 9287135017
ADDRESS : 6856 E. Sandra Terrace
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : Arizona
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: 6f39144cdad14daa8cea11de91e1bb0b
Form Submission On : 4/24/2021 5:12:02 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
Page 387
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: Proposed Development at Scottsdale and Bell Rd
From: Reece, Keith
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 at 9:20 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Proposed Development at Scottsdale and Bell Rd
To Jim Waring:
I am a resident in the 85254 district and there is a proposed development on the SW corner of Bell Rd and Scottsdale
that is a proposed 14 story high rise. This is a terrible idea for the following reasons:
o Traffic Congestion – this intersection is already over crowded with the multi-use developments in the Kierland
area it is a nightmare to go through this area between 6-8 AM and 3-6 PM
o Detrimental to our environment – this high density project is bad for our local environment with the additional
traffic comes the increase in cars and pollution.
o Aesthetically Wrong – this will be the largest high rise in the neighborhood and Scottsdale should not be turned
into a corridor for high rises and increased crime.
Please fight against this proposal. I have lived in this area for over 25 years, when Kierland weas a farm field and
Greenway was a dead end at 64th St. All of the development that has occurred in the area has only increased traffic and
crimes and someone has to take a stand and say “enough is enough” I appreciate your understanding in this matter.
Best Regards,
Keith Reece
*******
Page 388
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:10 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning for FLW and Scottsdale rd apartment bldg
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:09 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Judy Reid
SUBJECT : Zoning for FLW and Scottsdale rd apartment bldg
MESSAGE : Dear Mr. Waring,
I am writing to share that I and many of my neighbors are against the height and density of the apartment bldg being
planned for the area. I heard there was a little publicized zoning hearing recently. It is far too tall and too many units to
allow for adequate traffic flow , not to mention the eye sore of the height of the bldg. This is not downtown Phoenix.
I know you have been very responsive in the past to the needs of the neighbors. Please let us know what we can do to
modify this catastrophe. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judy Reid
Email : jreid7@cox.net
AREA : 602
PHONE : 6772879
ADDRESS : 5805 E. Grandview R.
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: bf45d7bc357043eab07055181049568c
Form Submission On : 4/30/2021 8:08:27 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 389
In Response to Scottsdale & Bell
Case No. Z-12-21-2
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Comments and Concerns
Architecture
The architectural vernacular chosen for this project is commendable.
However, we strongly request the following comments, concerns and suggestions be included in your
decision-making regarding the rezoning case for the SWC of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Comments and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and height requests:
- Rezoning from the current C-2 zoning to a PUD cannot be considered a minor rezoning. The request to
increase the maximum height from 56’ to 156’ with an increase of dwelling units from 44 to 255 is way
too much for this corner. The mass of the proposed building would not form a gateway but a blockade.
- The claim that this development could be the gateway to the Kierland area is farfetched since Kierland
is ± 0.93 miles further south.
- The height and mass of the proposed building will not compliment the 125’ high FLW Spire, but will
compete and dwarf it.
- Exhibit I is a map of the existing context and also shows future and current under development
projects. None of these projects, either office or residential, are remotely close to the requested height
and number of floors.
Comments and concerns regarding programming:
- The proposed programming shows no retail or public activity on street level on either Bell Road or
Scottsdale Road. Instead, it will be a screened parking garage over the first two floors. This is highly
undesirable on, what is described by the developer as a “significant intersection”. Unfortunately, this
seems to be the trend. Retail and food establishments will be taken down and will slowly, as
development continues along Scottsdale Road corridor, result in a dead and inactive streetscape.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 390
Suggestions to consider:
A strict limit on height.
There should be a gradual increase in height along the Scottsdale road corridor, starting at The Courtyard with
3 stories North of the Canal along Bell Road, to the 12 story Optima Kierland Buildings.
The height limit/reduction to 6 floors would bring the following benefits.
- Less of a barrier/wall and a more friendly gesture while traveling south on Scottsdale Road.
- Less visible from the neighboring single-family developments to the West.
- A better integration with its surrounding developments. Exhibit I
- A better dialog with the FLW Spire across Scottsdale Road.
A change in program
A reduction in height and thus number of dwellings results in a reduction in the need for parking. This opens
up the possibility for retail/restaurants on street level which will enhance the activity and liveliness of this
important and prominent corner and with that can really become a grand introduction/gateway to the
Kierland area.
A section of the new proposed program and number of floors
Level 6: Residential
Level 5: Residential
Level 4: Residential
Level 3: Residential
Level 2: Parking
Level 1 (Street): Retail/Food and Lobby for Residential
Basement 1: Parking
Basement 2: Parking
Conclusion:
As the developer mentions in his description “The Kierland area is a highly desirable part of Phoenix due to its
proximity to a number of high-end urban amenities” and “The project provides an opportunity to redevelop a
simple 1-story retail building located at this significant intersection with high quality residential development
that will add an architectural statement on the Phoenix side of Scottsdale Road, with an overall goal of framing
this critical route and enhancing the Kierland area to the south”
Let’s treat this corner the way it deserves.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 391
Exhibit I
Context Map
Existing, Currently Under Development and Future Projects
Along Scottsdale Road
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 392
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 393
David O Simmons
From: ronald@suite6.net
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:53 PM
To: David O Simmons; PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Subject: Comments Concerns Rezoning Case Z-12-21-2
Attachments: Comments and Concerns Rezoning Case Z-12-21-2.pdf
Dear David and Planning Commission,
Please find attached a document that outline our concerns and suggestions for the development proposed on the SWC
Bell Road and Scottsdale. Also included a context map of the surrounding buildings and future developments.
I have send this document to David before. But since this is an important issue allow me to send it again.
In addition to the comments made in the attached, I would like to emphasize that by allowing a building of this height
would set a dangerous president for the rest of the Scottdale R oad corridor. I am not opposed to development but it has
to be in proportion to the location and context.
In the hope you make a well-educated recommendation/decision,
Kind Regards,
Ronald de Bont – Senior Designer
suite 6 architecture + planning
6111 north cattletrack road
scottsdale, az 85250
480 348 7800
Page 394
David O Simmons
From: Council District 2 PCC
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:10 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning @ Bell Rd. & FLW, Southwest corner
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Date: Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:23 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: emdist2 - Form Submission
FROM : Marilyn S Slaven
SUBJECT : Zoning @ Bell Rd. & FLW, Southwest corner
MESSAGE : I am concerned about a high-rise structure being built on this corner. The traffic problem alone should
preclude this plan. I am not opposed to growth or an increased population, but I believe it can be done thoughtfully,
with an eye to the future. One other item: I don't think this change of zoning was publicized enough to achieve a fair
amount of public opinion. Thank you for listening. A 35 year resident
Email : marilynslaven7@gmail.com
AREA : 602
PHONE : 4189177
ADDRESS : 5201 E. Blanche Dr.
CITY : SCOTTSDALE
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: e57b72eee9f14120b65e96a6d9bb1db8
Form Submission On : 4/30/2021 8:23:34 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district2/contact-district-2
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 395
David O Simmons
From: Candice Steel
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 3:25 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-PV-1-21-2 (Companion Case Z-12-21-2):
Please do not rezone this property into multi-family units. This local community is already being engulfed by multi- family
properties and the intersection is heavily congested.
Rather than congest our streets, invest in the small businesses that are integral to our economy and what makes this
area so special. Who in the community will really benefit from this besides the developers and the city council
members? People live in this area because it is not a metropolis. Let’s keep it that way!
Page 396
In Response to Scottsdale & Bell
Case No. Z-12-21-2
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SCOTTSDALE ROAD AND BELL ROAD
Comments and Concerns
Architecture
The architectural vernacular chosen for this project is commendable.
However, we strongly request the following comments, concerns and suggestions be included in your
decision-making regarding the rezoning case for the SWC of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Comments and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and height requests:
- Rezoning from the current C-2 zoning to a PUD cannot be considered a minor rezoning. The request to
increase the maximum height from 56’ to 156’ with an increase of dwelling units from 44 to 255 is way
too much for this corner. The mass of the proposed building would not form a gateway but a blockade.
- The claim that this development could be the gateway to the Kierland area is farfetched since Kierland
is ± 0.93 miles further south.
- The height and mass of the proposed building will not compliment the 125’ high FLW Spire, but will
compete and dwarf it.
- Exhibit I is a map of the existing context and also shows future and current under development
projects. None of these projects, either office or residential, are remotely close to the requested height
and number of floors.
Comments and concerns regarding programming:
- The proposed programming shows no retail or public activity on street level on either Bell Road or
Scottsdale Road. Instead, it will be a screened parking garage over the first two floors. This is highly
undesirable on, what is described by the developer as a “significant intersection”. Unfortunately, this
seems to be the trend. Retail and food establishments will be taken down and will slowly, as
development continues along Scottsdale Road corridor, result in a dead and inactive streetscape.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 397
Suggestions to consider:
A strict limit on height.
There should be a gradual increase in height along the Scottsdale road corridor, starting at The Courtyard with
3 stories North of the Canal along Bell Road, to the 10 story Optima Kierland Buildings.
The height limit/reduction to 6 floors would bring the following benefits.
- Less of a barrier/wall and a more friendly gesture while traveling south on Scottsdale Road.
- Less visible from the neighboring single-family developments to the West.
- A better integration with its surrounding developments. Exhibit I
- A better dialog with the FLW Spire across Scottsdale Road.
A change in program
A reduction in height and thus number of dwellings results in a reduction in the need for parking. This opens
up the possibility for retail/restaurants on street level which will enhance the activity and liveliness of this
important and prominent corner and with that can really become a grand introduction/gateway to the
Kierland area.
A section of the new proposed program and number of floors
Level 6: Residential
Level 5: Residential
Level 4: Residential
Level 3: Residential
Level 2: Parking
Level 1 (Street): Retail/Food and Lobby for Residential
Basement 1: Parking
Basement 2: Parking
Conclusion:
As the developer mentions in his description “The Kierland area is a highly desirable part of Phoenix due to its
proximity to a number of high-end urban amenities” and “The project provides an opportunity to redevelop a
simple 1-story retail building located at this significant intersection with high quality residential development
that will add an architectural statement on the Phoenix side of Scottsdale Road, with an overall goal of framing
this critical route and enhancing the Kierland area to the south”
Let’s treat this corner the way it deserves.
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 398
Exhibit I
Context Map
Existing, Currently Under Development and Future Projects
Along Scottsdale Road
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 399
R. & M. Vanderhulst, East Sandra Terrace, Scottsdale 85254
Page 400
David O Simmons
From: wayne mailloux
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:21 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case No. Z-12-21-2, Scottsdale & Bell PUD
Many thanks for forwarding this David.
Wayne
On Mar 8, 2021, at 11:07 AM, David O Simmons
Mr. Mailloux,
An application has been submitted for the southwest corner of Scottsdale Rd and Bell/Frank Lloyd
Wright. You can review the applicants first review narrative
here: https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
Please let me know I you have any questions or concerns. Take care and talk soon.
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Planner II* Village Planner
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:45 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: FW: zoning PUD
David Please respond to customer. Thanks Vikki Zoning
From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:38 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: zoning PUD
Good afternoon,
Please see email below from customer.
Thank you
Page 401
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:00 PM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd - Form Submission
FROM : James mailloux
SUBJECT : Hampton Group application for SW corner of Bell & Scottsdale road
MESSAGE : I understand a zoning PUD proposal has been submitted for this site. I would like to know how to access
this application and what will be the schedule for the opportunity for public comment? What I read bout this projects
leads me to have some initial concerns.
Wayne Mailloux
President, Kierland Community Alliance
Email : lonewaynger@me.com
AREA : 203
PHONE : 2474199
ADDRESS : 7120 E Kierland Blvd. unit 1207
CITY : Scottsdale
STATE : AZ
ZIP : 85254
Submission ID: 09867d55e3c94b7db1f6a5baf31d276f
Form Submission On : 3/4/2021 1:59:39 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 402
Page 403
Page 404
Page 405
Page 406
Page 407
Page 408
Page 409
Page 410
Page 411
Page 412
Page 413
Page 414
Page 415
Page 416
Page 417
Page 418
Page 419
Page 420
Page 421
Page 422
Page 423
Page 424
Page 425
Page 426
Page 427
Page 428
Page 429
Page 430
Page 431
Page 432
Page 433
Page 434
Page 435
Page 436
Page 437
Page 438
Page 439
Page 440
Page 441
Page 442
Page 443
Page 444
Page 445
Page 446
Page 447
Page 448
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
Page 452
Page 453
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Page 458
Page 459
Page 460
Page 461
Page 462
Page 463
Page 464
Page 465
Page 466
Page 467
Page 468
Page 469
Page 470
Page 471
Page 472
Page 473
Page 474
Page 475
Page 476
Page 477
Page 478
Page 479
Page 480
Page 481
Page 482
Page 483
Page 484
Page 485
Page 486
Page 487
Page 488
Page 489
Page 490
Page 491
Page 492
Page 493
Page 494
Page 495
Page 496
Page 497
Page 498
Page 499
Page 500
Page 501
Page 502
Page 503
Page 504
Page 505
Page 506
Page 507
Page 508
Page 509
Page 510
Page 511
Page 512
Page 513
Page 514
Page 515
Page 516
Page 517
Page 518
Page 519
Page 520
Page 521
Page 522
Page 523
Page 524
Page 525
Page 526
Page 527
Page 528
Page 529
Page 530
Page 531
Page 532
Page 533
Page 534
Page 535
Page 536
Page 537
Page 538
Page 539
Page 540
Page 541
Page 542
Page 543
Page 544
Page 545
Page 546
Page 547
Page 548
Page 549
Page 550
Page 551
Page 552
Page 553
Page 554
Page 555
Page 556
Page 557
Page 558
Page 559
Page 560
Page 561
Page 562
Page 563
Page 564
Page 565
Page 566
Page 567
Page 568
Page 569
Page 570
Page 571
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-12-21-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting April 5, 2021
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Location Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-PV-1-21-2 and Z-12-21-2 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in opposition, wishing to speak.
Mr. Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided an
overview of the request to include background of how the area developed over
time, the General Plan Land Use Map designation of GPA request. Mr. Wood
elaborated on the high volume of traffic at the intersection of Bell Road and
Scottsdale Road and used this as an argument for the proposed height of the
building. Mr. Wood also went over conceptual site plans and elevations as well
as proposed parking and landscape standards. Further, Mr. Wood shared public
outreach efforts conducted to date.
Vice Chair Joe Lesher shared that he thinks the building has a nice design but
has a concern with the proposed height. He also thought that this is an awkward
location for high end residential adjacent to two major arterials.
Mr. Wood shared that there is nothing more constant than change. He
elaborated by sharing that the City of Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country
and will continue to grow up in height as the population grows due to the need for
more residential units in the area.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked if the proposed open space is all on the ground level.
Mr. Nick Wood shared that the proposed open space is located on the ground
level as well as on the roof deck.
Ms. Jennifer Hall shared that she too has concerns with the proposed height.
The building as depicted on the elevations are simply too tall for this area.
Public Comment:
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 572
None (no show)
Applicants Response:
None
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 573
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-12-21-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 04, 2021
Request From C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
VPC Recommendation Approval, subject to two stipulation modifications and
two additional stipulations
VPC Vote 11-4 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Mortensen, Popovic, Severs,
Sparks, Wise, and Gubser in favor. Committee
members Balderrama, Petersen, Ward and Lesher not
in favor.
VPC DISCUSSION:
1 speaker card was submitted in support, wishing to speak
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Desert
Ridge and Kierland Employment Center, Comprehensive Bicycle Master plan,
Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles, Zero Waste
Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix Plan. Mr.
Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed stipulations
for the case including Stipulation 1.e. recommending the building height be
limited to a maximum of 110 feet as there is no existing policy basis to support
the proposed height of 141 feet. However, since no adopted policy plan exists for
the Scottsdale Road corridor, the Village Planning Committee is more than able
to recommend what they feel is appropriate for this site. He shared that the site is
unique as it is located on the corner of two Major Arterials as well as transit
corridors, which could warrant more height.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked staff what the maximum height is.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 574
Mr. Simmons shared that the maximum heigh stipulated by staff is 110 feet,
however, the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 141 feet, exclusive of
root top amenity structures.
Ms. Diane Petersen shared that she has concerns with traffic patterns on the
private access drive (71st Street).
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, provided an in-depth and detailed presentation
on both cases concurrently. He stated that the existing commercial retail on this
site is closing and as a result, the property is selling. He shared that the
proposed project is an architectural marvel that will be highlighted as a “gem” of
the corridor, if approved as proposed by the applicant. He shared that corner
serves as a gateway to the Kierland area and Scottsdale Road corridor to the
south. He also highlighted that the improvements to the site would be a welcome
addition to the area, creating a pedestrian friendly environment and an
aesthetically pleasing entry gateway with pedestrian friendly lighting and an
above par garage wrap, mimicking commercial retail storer frontages.
Mr. Wood shared that the Scottsdale Airport employs more than 50, 000 people
currently and is growing to accommodate more than 70,000 workers in tech and
other high paying, professional industries. Housing is needed for this growth in
workforce and this proposal would fulfill the need for executive level housing
options in the area. He also highlighted that the proposal is located within a Major
Employment Center. This proposal would also fulfill the goals of alternative
housing option in a Major Employment Center. Mr. Wood elaborated on Centers
and Corridors outlined int eh City of Phoenix General Plan. Although no formal
Centers or Corridors have been adopted, the Kierland Area would constitute this,
but has yet to be formally established. The applicants proposed height would be
supported if this corridor was considered a formal Corridor. Mr. Wood also
shared graphics of what the roof top amenity areas would look like upon
completion. Further, Mr. Wood shared projected traffic counts and emphasized
that this proposal would not add any additional strain to traffic patterns in the
area, per CivTech’ s traffic analysis.
Mr. Wood proposed changes to two at staff’s recommended stipulations as
follows:
Stipulation No. 1.d. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 141
feet, inclusive EXCLUSIVE of non-dwelling space utilized for resident amenities
location on the roof deck.
Stipulation No. 1.e. Add the following development and design standards to the
development narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR
WITHIN 50 FEET OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell
Road, that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale and
the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section 1305.3.a.
in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 575
Lastly, Mr. Wood went over community outreach efforts and applauded the team
for mitigating all opposition prior to public hearings for recommendation.
Ms. Cindy DiMassa stated that there are currently no sidewalks along the
private access drive (71st St). If pedestrians do not have access to Bell Road and
Scottsdale road residents will have to walk on the private access drive, which will
put them in danger.
Mr. Wood shared that they are proposing exits for residents on the corners of the
building, which will provide direct access to tenants to both Bell road and
Scottsdale Road from eh building.
Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if the public outreach slide, reflecting all of the dots,
address building heights.
Mr. Wood shared that the graphic does not address building heights but is
directly related to a broad based policy document similar to a General Plan.
Mr. Alex Popovic gave kudos to the development team for mitigating all
opposition prior to coming before the hearing bodies for recommendation. He
shared that he is in full support of the proposal as presented by the applicant, to
include the proposed height of 141 feet.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher asked if the intersection at 71st Street and Bell was
safe for left hand turns wests bound on Bell.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, shared that the intersection is safe,
but not easy to maneuver during peak hours.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked staff why the proposed stipulation limiting the height to
110 feet.
Mr. Simmons shared that there is no current adopted policy plan in place that
would support the applicants proposed height at this time, but there are site
conditions that would warrant a height of 110 feet based on formulas used to
justify heights on recently approved projects using distance from single-family
residential as a justification.
Mr. Wood shared that the staff reports highlights that the Village Planning
Committee is open to make recommendations on height due to the lack of
existing policy plans int eh area. He defended the proposed height of 14q feet,
exclusive of root top amenity structures.
Ms. Gerst asked if the applicants proposed height was okay with the City of
Scottsdale Aviation Department.
Mr. Simmons shared that the City of Scottsdale Aviation Department did not
provide any recommended stipulations in regard to height for this proposal.
Mr. Roy Wise asked if 71st Street has access to Bell Road and Scottsdale Road.
Mr. Wood shared that access is exiting on both Major Arterials from the private
access drive (71st Street).
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 576
Mr. Paul Severs asked if this proposal was limited to 110 feet, as proposed by
staff, would it kill the project from moving forward.
Mr. Wood shared that the project would not make economic sense if it were to
be capped at 100 feet, therefore, it would kill the project.
Mr. Alan Sparks shared that he loves the building as proposed. He shared that
he lives in the neighborhood and has no objection to the applicants proposed
height. However, he shared that he is opposed to the project due to lack of
improvements on 71st Street. He stated that there are no proposed or existing
sidewalks on the private access drive. He shared that the street is too narrow
and is a small two way private street. He also shared that people illegally park
along the street, which blocks easy ingress and ingress through the area. He
also shared concerns about emergency responders being able to get through the
street when cars are illegally parked along it. He asked if the developer plans to
improve it or address the existing inadequate conditions.
Mr. Wood shared that CivTech determined that the private access drive was
indeed adequate and safe in regard to the number of units proposed. He shared
that this is outlined in the traffic analysis report generated by the traffic engineer.
Ms. Gerst asked if the number of units proposed was for the 110 feet or 141 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the 255 units were proposed at the height of 14 feet. If the
project is capped at 110 feet, the developer will walk away, and the project will
not come to fruition.
Ms. Gerst asked if it were a possibility to gate the private access way in an effort
to make the project a private community.
Mr. Wood shared that this was not a possibility as the public needs access
through the private access drive as well.
Chairman Robert Gubser shared that higher traffic generating uses line the
private access drive and the aces way functions just fine now.
Mr. Wood concurred.
Mr. Popovic asked what alternative exists for the site if this project dies not
come to fruition. He also shared concerns with illegal parking along the private
access way. He recommended having illegally parked cars towed to help to
mitigate this problem.
Ms. Diane Petersen asked if the developer would walk if the height were capped
at 110 feet.
Mr. Wood shared that the developer would walk if the height were to be capped
at 110 feet.
Public Comment:
Mr. Bryan Jefferies spoke in support of the proposal. He shared that this use
would generate much lower traffic counts than a commercial use and provides
alternative housing options for executives working in the Scottsdale Airpark. He
also shared that he proposed heigh by the developer is a non-issue as the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 577
project is quite far away from single-family residential uses. He stated that the
project would not have a negative impact on existing residents.
Mr. Abram Bowman left the meeting around 8:00, bringing quorum down to 15.
Applicants Response:
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineer, proposed an alternative to the
perceived issues with the right hand turn onto Bell Road from the private access
drive. She recommended the committee propose an additional stipulation
requiring further discussion with the Streets department for the addition of a
refuge lane on Bell Road west bound.
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, stated that he would be happy to add this as a
stipulation. He shared that the applicant would have to ask permission for an
additional lane in the median from the Streets department.
Chairman Robert Gubser asked if there were any additional concerns about
71sst Street servicing this project.
Ms. Cartier replied, no.
Mr. Alan Sparks stated that he does have concerns with the existing conditions
on 71st Street.
Mr. Wood asked the committee to recommend approval subject to the two
stipulation modifications he proposed as well as the addition of two additional
stipulations discussed by the committee.
Chairman Gubser expressed his full support of the project as proposed by the
applicant.
Vice Chairman Joe Lesher expressed concerns with the proposed height. He
shared that he had researched height in the area and the closets building with
similar heigh were located on the Scottsdale Waterfront in Old town Scottsdale.
He also shared that the new buildings along Tempe Town lake were comparable
in height. He shared that he is willing to support the staff recommendation of 110
feet maximum. He shared that he feels that the applicants proposed height does
not feel right for this area.
Ms. Cynthis DiMassa stated that towing the cars along the private access drive
would be a waste of time for the Phoenix Police Department.
Mr. Robert Goodhue stated that he has a couple of issues. He shared that is a
building were to have a height proposed by this applicant in this area, this site
would be the most appropriate. He also shared that the character of the area is
changing in this direction.
Ms. Gerst asked if it would be more palatable for the maximum building height to
be 141 feet inclusive of the roof top amenity structures.
Mr. Wood shared that the roof top amenity structures are in descript and cannot
be seen from the street level.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 578
Ms. Jennifer Hall stated that the committee does not have an adopted policy
basis for this area, even though it has been asked to be initiated in the recent
past. She stated that the applicant’s proposal of 141 feet is acceptable due to the
unique conditions on this specific site. She is also amazed that there is no public
opposition and applauded the applicant for mitigating all concerns prior to public
hearings.
MOTION:
Mr. Alex Popovic made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Case No.
Z-12-21-2, with two stipulation modifications and two additional stipulations.
Mr. Roy Wise seconded the motion.
VOTE:
11-4 with committee members DiMassa, Gerst, Goodhue, Hall, Mazza,
Mortensen, Popovic, Severs, Sparks, Wise, and Gubser in favor. Committee
members Balderrama, Petersen, Ward and Lesher not in favor.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the
final narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR WITHIN 50
FEET OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell Road,
that directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the
street. All pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented
scale and the use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per
Section 1305.3.a. in the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
e. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 110 feet, inclusive
E of non-dwelling space utilized for resident amenities location on the roof
deck.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 579
f. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use Map
as an exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations, siting the
companion GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70-feet of right-of-way for the south half
of Bell Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
had been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements
and right-of-way dedications may be required as identified in the approved traffic
study. Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with these
improvements and dedications.
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final
site plan approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and that
the development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If
temporary equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the
permanent structure a separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and
a “No Hazard Determination” obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COLLABORATE WITH THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR A
REFUGE LANE IN THE MEDIAN WEST BOUND ON BELL ROAD AT 71st
STREET.
9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS FROM THE SITE TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD.
Staff Comments:
None
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 580
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-12-21-2 (Scottsdale & Bell Road PUD)
(Companion Case GPA-PV-1-21-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
From: C-2
To: PUD
Acreage: 2.56
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential and commercial
uses.
Applicant: John H Berry, The Hampton Group
Owner: Bell 166, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 4/5/2021 Information only.
Paradise Valley 10/4/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications and
additional stipulations. Vote: 11-4
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation, with an additional stipulation and deletion of a stipulation.
Motion Discussion: There was discussion about the removal of Stipulation No. 9 regarding the
requirement for the public access easement along the southern portion of the site.
Motion details: Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve Z-12-21-2, per the Paradise
Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation with the additional stipulation as read into
the record and the deletion of Stipulation No. 9.
Maker: Gaynor
Second: Mangum
Vote: 6-1 (Busching)
Absent: Gorraiz and McCabe
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result is a more
walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment.
2. The proposed development will provide additional housing options close to employers
in and designated Major Employment Centers that will contribute to a mix of housing
types in in the area and additional housing in the City.
Page 581
3. At the staff recommended height, the project is similar in scale and intensity to other
deployments within the Scottsdale Road corridor and larger Kierland area.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Scottsdale and Bell 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 September 14, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: February 19, 2021
2nd Submittal: May 4, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 23, 2021
Hearing Draft: September 14, 2021
b. Update narrative to include a comparative parking standards table to the final
narrative.
c. Add the following development and design standards to the development
narrative: A minimum of two building entrances, one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET
OF Scottsdale Road and one on OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF Bell Road, that
directly connects to the publicly accessible sidewalk adjacent to the street. All
pedestrian entrances shall be defined by pedestrian-oriented scale and the
use of distinctive materials and architectural elements per Section 1305.3.a. in
the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
e. Update narrative to reflect a maximum building height of 110 feet, inclusive E
of non-dwelling space utilized for resident amenities location on the roof deck.
fe. Update the development narrative to include a General Plan Land Use Map as
an exhibit depicting the existing and proposed designations, siting the
companion GPA case number.
2. The developer shall dedicate a total of 70 feet of right-of-way for the south half of Bell
Road and construct the roadway, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study had
been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-site improvements and right-
of-way dedications may be required as identified in the approved traffic study.
Development shall be responsible for the cost associated with these improvements
and dedications.
Page 582
5. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
6. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to final site
plan approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development and that the
development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the FAA. If temporary
equipment used during construction exceeds the height of the permanent structure a
separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and a “No Hazard Determination”
obtained prior to the construction start date.
7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COLLABORATE WITH THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE POTENTIAL FOR A REFUGE
LANE IN THE MEDIAN WEST BOUND ON BELL ROAD AT 71st STREET.
9. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE
SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC ACCESS FROM THE SITE TO SCOTTSDALE ROAD.
9. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER
SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING
APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 583
Attachment F
David O Simmons
From: David Phelps
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 8:52 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village meeting
Hello David,
My name is David Phelps and I own the Breakfast Joynt at 64th street and bell and I would like to pledge my support for
the new high rise going in at Scottsdale rd and Bell. Let me know what I need to do
Thanks
Dave
Page 584
David O Simmons
From: farid samiei
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:40 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: The Hampton Group
Hello Mr. Simmons,
This is Farid Samiei. I am the manager at the Caspian Food Market which is located at 17040 N Scottsdale Road #108. I
just wanted to let you know that I won't be able to attend today's meeting at 6pm but I would support the Hampton Group,
INC.
Thank you,
Farid
Page 585
David O Simmons
From: Mike Redfern
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: PV Village Building
David,
On behalf of the Jackson’s company, I not only approve of the residential building on Scottsdale and Bell, I am very
excited about it.
Mike Redfern
District Manager
Jacksons Food Stores
(480) 881-5457
mike.redfern@jacksons.com
Page 586
David O Simmons
From: Pam Azin
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 6:29 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale & Bell rd project
Regarding the gateway to Kierland project, as owner of Sina East center at 17040 N. Scottsdale Rd and the businesses it
houses, I would just like to voice support for the new project.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 587
David O Simmons
From: Ryan O'Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:58 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Scottsdale and Bell Luxury Development
Hello, My name is Ryan O ‘Daniel and I am a resident at 6418 East Claire Dr, Scottsdale 85254. I encourage the Village to
support this project. Many people do not want the hassle of owning a single family home. They like the lock and leave
lifestyle. This project with all its luxury amenities and desirable location, is perfect for many young business
professionals and also older adults looking to downsize.
Ryan O'Daniel
Principal
Intrepid Public Affairs
(602) 332-2039
Page 588
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous
of them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov”. When did the COP allow developers to use their email
address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the
project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zoning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Page 589
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
Page 590
David O Simmons
From: Wood, Nick
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:46 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Rich Warren; Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: Re: Hampton Group Project
Good afternoon Mr. Warren.
My apologies, but I believe you are misconstruing the language referencing the “must” be approved.
If you read the remainder of the sentence, I believe that it clearly points out that this project may not go forward
without the approval the City Council. There’s nothing presumptuous about that statement, it is nothing more than a
statement of the legal requirements for this project to be developed.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the Optima Kierland project. Not only did I represent Optima with respect to that zoning
case, but I also live there.
As to your comments regarding infrastructure, while the existing infrastructure is more than adequate to handle the
development that will be heard tonight, in the event any developments requires additional infrastructure, the
developers required to install that additional infrastructure at it’s own cost and expense. For example, Optima was
required to upsize the sewer lines to serve buildings three and four.
Finally, sharing Mr. Simmon’s email address with everyone, is a courtesy, to assist you in sharing your thoughts with Mr.
Simmons, who is the village planner on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
In any event, I strongly encourage you to sign up and speak about your objections to this project tonight. Even though
you strongly oppose this project (and Optima), I believe that everyone’s voice should be heard.
Kind regards,
Nick
Nicholas J. Wood
Snell & Wilmer
400 East Van Buren Street
Phoenix, Arizona, 85004
Office: 602-382-6269
Cell: 602-451-2255
Fax: 602-382-6070
nwood@swlaw.com
Albuquerque, Boise, Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Cabos, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Reno, Salt
Lake City, San Diego, Seattle, Tucson, Washington DC The information contained in this electronic mail message is
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
Page 591
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at
602.382.6000, and delete the original message. Thank you.
On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:32 PM, David O Simmons
[EXTERNAL] david.simmons@phoenix.gov
________________________________
Mr. Warren,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-12-21-2 and GPA-PV-1-21-2. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
concerns.
The cases are scheduled to go to Village for a Formal Recommendation on October 4, 2021 (tonight).
Please register for the virtual meeting by clicking on the link on the attached agenda if you wish to attend.
I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
public hearing process.
The applicants Hearing Draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2)
Lastly, staff formulates the first level of recommendation solely based on land use policy. The Village Planning
Committee formulates the second recommendation and the Planning Commission formulates a third recommendation.
given rezoning request.
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: Rich Warren
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 6:55 AM
To: David O Simmons
Page 592
Cc: Rich Warren
Subject: Hampton Group Project
David,
Hello, please see attached flyer. This was dropped off at my doorstep by the Hampton Group, developer of the proposed
project at Bell & Scottsdale Road.
There are several disturbing things about the flyer:
1. “This project must be approved by the City of Phoenix.” MUST be approved? Wow, that’s kind of presumptuous of
them. Why are they leading one to believe it “must” be approved?
2. “Email your support to: David.simmons@phoenix.gov
allow developers to use their email address in their marketing materials?
3. To who do I email my opposition? The phrasing of this implies that David Simmons (COP) approves of the project.
Very questionable tactics. I’m not anti-developerment, not of the NIMBY crowd. But I am in favor of responsible
development. This project is not responsible. I know there was a precedent set with the Optima project, so it’s hard to
prevent other developers from following suit. But it’s obvious now that Optima is too tall (4-5 stories too tall) and too
dense (too many units per acre). The character of Kierland changing, and not for the better.
The infrastructure was designed to support the zo ning that was assigned to the land. When the zoning changes to accept
more residential projects, the infrastructure is disproportionately affected.
Rich Warren
6718 E. Paradise Lane
(480) 678-7071
Sent from my iPhone
<100421a.pdf>
Page 593
David O Simmons
From: THOMAS STERN
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 2:54 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel; Moran, Taylor N.; Wood, Nick
Subject: Re: Scottsdale & Bell
[EXTERNAL] tstern007@aol.com
Hi David,
In doing more research about this project and the subject of possible “alleged” payments to the neighbors as I indicated
to you, I find that I am completely wrong about it and I am very sorry that I made the statement. It did not happen at all
or in any way that I believed. This is totally my fault for the way that I communicated about something that I was
passionate about.
If you have forwarded my comments to anyone, please let them know that I assumed something that just was not true.
Again, I am sorry for creating the confusion. I sincerely apologize to you, the Planning Committee, Nick Wood and his
client.
Regards,
Tom Stern
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 5, 2021, at 8:12 AM, David O Simmons
>
> Mr. Stern,
>
> Thank you for reaching out. The Scottsdale & Bell PUD case has not been scheduled for public hearings for formal
recommendation. However, The case will be heard for Information Only at the April 5, 2021 Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee meeting. If you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee virtual meeting,
please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at david.simmons@phoenix.gov at
least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Please indicate the item number on the agenda if you wish to speak.
>
> I have also cc’d the applicant in the event you have questions for them.
>
> I have attached the agenda for your reference.
>
> Staff will provide hearing dates for recommendation once the applicant submits a hearing draft of their development
narrative. Once the hearing dates have been set and if you wish to speak at the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee virtual meeting, please submit a request to David Simmons, Paradise Valley Village Planner, via email at
david.simmons@phoenix.gov at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Staff will make every effort to
accommodate requests to speak submitted beyond the 48 hour period. Due to the added demands of facilitating the
virtual environment for the public, applicants and other staff members, we cannot consider any request less than six
business hours before the start of the meeting.
>
> I encourage you to virtually attend all public hearings moving forward. Community input is a critical component of the
Page 594
public hearing process.
>
> The applicants 1st review development narrative is available for review on the City’s website:
> https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-case
>
> The cases are filed by case number (Z-12-21-2).
>
> Please let me know if you have additional comments or concerns.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> David Simmons, MA
> Planner II* Village Planner
> 200 West Washington Street
> 3rd Floor
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> 602-262-4072
> david.simmons@phoenix.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: THOMAS STERN
> Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 2:52 PM
> To: David O Simmons
> Subject: Scottsdale & Bell
>
> Hi David,
>
> Re: GPA-PV-1-21-2
> Z-12-21-2
>
> We understand that this project will be presented to Planning Committee by Nick Wood on Monday night on behalf of
Hampton Group. We were told that this application is for informational purposes and is not in final design form.
>
> Please be aware that Landmark Condominium Association 15802 N 71st Street will vehemently object to this project in
its present form. We object to height, density, setbacks, traffic flow and proximity violation.
>
> We are also aware that the current owners have “ALLEGEDLY” offered payments to the immediate neighbors (CVS, the
Jackson’s Car Wash and the Chevron Gas Station) if they do not object to the project. We understand that this is a
common occurrence, but if true, we want it disclosed to Planning Committee.
>
> Finally, Kierland Community Alliance (KCA) also objects to this project in its present form.
>
> For the record, KCA and Landmark met with Nick Wood, Noel Griemsmann and Hampton last Tuesday. We told them
that we would support tasteful development on the site. Hampton did not appear willing to work with us.
>
> I will provide you with more information when we know what their final submission is.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Stern
>
> Sent from my iPad
Page 595
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-43-21-6 -
Southwest Corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road (Ordinance G-6927)
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-43-21-
6 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence District) to R-O (Residential Office - Restricted Commercial
District) to allow a professional office.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 (0.27-acres) and R-5 (0.43-acres)
Proposed Zoning: R-O
Acreage: 0.70-acres
Proposal: Professional office
Owner: Christopher Alt and Christiana Moss
Applicant: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
Representative: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct.
5, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with additional stipulations, by a vote of 7-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed and a petition for a three-
quarter vote was submitted on Nov. 9, 2021 and Nov. 12, 2021.
A three-quarter vote is required.
Location
Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 4048 N. 40th Place and 4035 E. Indian School Road.
Page 596
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 597
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-43-21-6) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) AND R-5 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO
R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.70 acre site located at the southwest
corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road in a portion of Section 30, Township 2
North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed
from 0.27 acres of “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) and 0.43 acres of “R-5”
(Multifamily Residence District) to “R-O” (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial
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”.
Page 598
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped June 25, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
a. That there be a maximum building height of one story and 15 feet.
2. There shall be no vehicular access from 40th Place.
3. The required landscape setback along 40th Place shall include large canopy
shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall
be minimum 4-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch
caliper. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover, shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the southern portion of the site shall be
planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas located within the southern 65 feet of the
site shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade
trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve
25 percent shade at maturity, as approved or modified by Planning and
Development Department.
6. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 599
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
13. The developer shall work with the neighbors and the Street Transportation
Department to either install no parking signs or permit parking only signs along
40th Place.
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 600
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 601
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-43-21-6
WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 2, GARY LYN, ACCORDING TO BOOK 48 OF MAPS, PAGE 28, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Page 602
Page 603
$WWDFKPHQW%
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021
Request From: R1-6 (0.27 acres) and R-5 (0.43 acres)
Request To: R-O (0.70 acres)
Proposed Use Professional office
Location Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian
School Road
Owner Christopher Alt and Christiana Moss
Representative/Applicant Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc.
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
40th Place Local Street 25-foot west half street
Street Map
Classification
Indian School Road Major Arterial 40-foot south half street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Encourage land uses that promote the growth of entrepreneurs or new
businesses in Phoenix in appropriate locations.
The proposed development will allow for the expansion of an existing office use while
remaining consistent with the residential scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Landscape setbacks and buffering vegetation will further help minimize the
impact of the portion of the structure on the adjacent single-family home to the south. By
rezoning the entirety of the site to R-O, the proposal will ensure that future development
and land uses on the site are compatible with the residential neighborhood.
Page 604
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; LOCAL & SMALL
BUSINESS, LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate adaptive reuse of older,
underutilized properties to create mechanisms for new local and small
businesses to operate, thrive and grow.
The conversion of the southern property to an extension of the existing office use
encourages the growth of a local business that is appropriately located along a major
arterial street.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
As stipulated, the development will provide mature shade trees along its 40th Place
frontage, as well as throughout its surface parking lot.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 6.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 7.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 9.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Office, single-family residence R-5, R1-6
North (Across Indian
Restaurant, surface parking lot C-2
School Road)
South Single-family residence R1-6
East (Across 40th
Single-family residences R1-6
Place)
West Restaurant C-2
Page 605
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
R-O (Residential Office)
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed site Plan
Minimum Building Setbacks
Front (East) 20 feet 19 feet (east) – Not met*
Side
(North) 10 feet 9.5 feet (north) – Not met**
(South) 10 feet 10 feet – Met
Rear 25 feet 57 feet (west) – Met
Landscaping Minimum 3 feet wide landscape Met
strip around principal structure
5 feet required along north side 9.5 feet (north) – Met
Lot Coverage 30% 33% - Not met*
Building Height 15 feet, plus 1 foot in height per 1 14.2 feet – Met
foot additional setback to a
maximum height of 25 feet
Parking 1 per 300 square feet net floor 20 spaces – Met
area (20 spaces)
*Site Plan modification or variance required
**Denotes existing condition on the portion of the site that will not be modified during
development.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to
rezone a 0.70-acre
site located on the
southwest corner of
40th Place and
Indian School Road
from 0.27 acres of
R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District)
and 0.43 acres of
R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District)
to R-O (Residential
Office – Restricted
Commercial District)
to allow an office use. Aerial Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 606
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
2. The site has a General
Plan Land Use Map
designation of
Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre. The
same designation exists
on the east, west, and
south of the site. To the
north of the site, across
Indian School Road, a
Commercial General
Plan Land Use Map
designation exists.
The proposal is not General Plan Land Use Map
consistent with the Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre designation. However, as the site is under 10 acres, a General Plan
Amendment is not required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site is currently
zoned R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence
District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence
District). The existing
office building is located
on the northern portion
of the site, which has
the multifamily zoning
but allows professional
office use. The single-
family portion of the
property to the south will
be redeveloped to
expand the footprint of
the office building.
Zoning Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 607
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
The residential
neighborhood to the
south of the site is
Zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District). To the
east, cross 40th Place, is a
professional office and more
single-family residences
zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence
District) where adjacent to
Indian School Road.
To the west of the site is a
restaurant zoned C-2
(Intermediate Commercial
District). North of the site,
across Indian School Road,
are a restaurant and a
surface parking lot also zoned
C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial District)
The proposal to rezone the
entirety of the site, including
Current Site Conditions the portion that includes the
existing office building, to R-O
will provide an appropriate transition from the commercial uses present along Indian
School Road to the residential neighborhood on 40th Place.
4. The proposed site plan depicts an existing office building on the northern portion of
the site (labeled “Lot 1”) and the proposed expansion into the new southern parcel
(labeled “Lot 2”). Conditions on Lot 1 are not changed with this proposal, and all
development activity is proposed on the southernmost parcel. The proposal
consists of a building addition to the existing office structure, expanding the building
footprint by 3,293 square feet, new landscaping areas along 40th Place and the
new southern perimeter property line, and an expansion of the surface parking area
on the southwestern portion of the site.
Page 608
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
Proposed Site Plan
Source: Studio Ma
The existing building setbacks along Indian School Road and along 40th Place do
not meet the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and, as the
proposal is to simply extend the existing building, staff is not recommending general
conformance with the site plan. The building expansion will be consistent in scale
and character with the existing office building, with the same building setback along
40th Place being extended south to the new parcel. This setback area will be
planted with similar vegetation as the existing property, which also complies with
staff’s recommendation for robust tree, shrub, and groundcover plantings listed in
Stipulation No. 3. The new portion of the building will also be set back 10 feet from
the southern perimeter property line, where the property is directly adjacent to a
single-family residence. Staff recommends that this area be planted with minimum
2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on center to achieve a vegetative buffer area
between the project and the home to the south. This is addressed in Stipulation No.
4.
Vehicular access will be provided solely from Indian School Road to discourage
visitor circulation and parking on 40th Place. This is also recommended by staff in
Stipulation No. 2. Vehicular circulation is planned to occur in the surface parking
Page 609
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
area on the western portion of the site, where there is an existing parking area on
the northern portion, and where a new parking area will be constructed on the
southern portion. This new parking area is proposed to be constructed of
permeable paving material to aid in stormwater permeation and reduce the urban
heat island effect. To further help provide a thermally comfortable surface area,
staff is recommending that the parking area be shaded to 25 percent with minimum
2-inch caliper trees dispersed through the parking area. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 5 and only applies to the new parking area on the new southern
portion of the site.
Although no signage is currently proposed, a stipulation prohibiting internally lit
signs is recommended to help maintain the residential character of the area. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 6
5. The proposed conceptual building elevations depict a one-story office building with
a modern wood slat design consistent with the current condition of the existing
building (see Current Site Conditions exhibit on Page 5 of this staff report). The
design will be extended south to the new parcel and will be of a compatible scale to
the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood.
Proposed Building Elevations
Source: Studio Ma
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
6. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
Page 610
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. Staff is recommending robust tree plantings along the
southern and east landscape setbacks, as well as dispersed throughout the new
parking area. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Further, the
northern portion of the site where the existing building sits has been previously
landscaped to provide trees, shrubs, and live groundcover.
7. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The development shall provide
accessible pedestrian connectivity to the sidewalk on Indian School Road and
bicycle parking near the building entrance, per Stipulation Nos. 7 and 8.
8. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
The proposal incorporates requirements for bicycle parking that follows standards
set forth in the Walkable Urban Code, which is the city’s form-based zoning code
intended to enhance the pedestrian realm and encourage multi-modal
transportation. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
9. 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
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance expand its recycling and other waste
diversion programs. The development will continue to utilize regular trash and
recycling collection.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
10. At the time this staff report was written, staff received one inquiry regarding
changing the rezoning request and one letter in opposition citing concerns with
compatibility and overflow parking in the neighborhood.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
11. The Public Transit Department has requested that the developer provide clearly
defined, accessible pathways that connect all building entrances and exits, and
public sidewalks, and, where pedestrian paths cross drive aisles, that they be
constructed of materials that visually contrast with parking and drive aisle surfaces.
Page 611
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9.
12. The Street Transportation Department has required that all streets be constructed
with all required improvements and comply with current ADA standards. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
OTHER
13. 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. 11.
14. 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 will provide an appropriate transition between a major arterial street
and an established single-family neighborhood.
2. The proposal will provide an opportunity for an existing small business located on a
major arterial street to expand in the Camelback East area and serve the
surrounding neighborhood.
3. The proposal is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding
neighborhood and will provide an appropriate land use transition from the
commercial uses along Indian School Road
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
June 25, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. That there be a maximum building height of one story and 15 feet.
2. There shall be no vehicular access from 40th Place.
Page 612
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
3. The required landscape setback along 40th Place shall include large canopy shade
trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be minimum 4-inch
caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch caliper. Five, five-gallon
shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall provide minimum 75
percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the southern portion of the site shall be
planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas located within the southern 65 feet of the site
shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent
shade at maturity, as approved or modified by Planning and Development
Department.
6. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of
Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 613
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
September 16, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial
Site plan date stamped June 25, 2021 (1 page)
Elevations date stamped June 25, 2021 (2 pages)
Community correspondence (3 pages)
Page 614
C-2 C-2 *
Z-SP-3-81 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
40TH ST
40TH PL
R-5
R-4 R1-6
R-3A*
I
Miles
Z-43-21 NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.02 0.01 0 0.02
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 THOMAS RD
SR 51
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
40TH ST
WASHINGTON ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
FROM:
R-5 ( 0.43 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-43-21
DATE:
9/8/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.27 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.70 Acres QS 16-37 H-10 TO: R-O ( 0.70 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-5, R1-6 18, 1 22, 2
R-O 1/development N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-43-21.mxd
Page 615
C-2 C-2 *
Z-SP-3-81 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
40TH ST
40TH PL
R-5
R-4 R1-6
R-3A*
I
Miles
Z-43-21 NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.02 0.01 0 0.02
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 THOMAS RD
SR 51
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
40TH ST
WASHINGTON ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
FROM:
R-5 ( 0.43 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-43-21
DATE:
9/8/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.27 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.70 Acres QS 16-37 H-10 TO: R-O ( 0.70 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-5, R1-6 18, 1 22, 2
R-O 1/development N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-43-21.mxd
Page 616
' / Ƃ
[]ëÊè]²Ƃ Ƃ $ ƂļÍ Ƃ
IƂƂ ƂƂ 4½ƂoƂ%Ƃ
"Ƃ+ƂƂ Ƃ 3#_! #!Ƃ
ƂƂ ƂƂ Ƃ
ťŸ Ƃ ŵܧƂ Ƃ
)O-Ƃ C $ C Ƃ ŚƂ$Ƃ Ƃ C $ Ƃ, Ƃ
IƂƂ ƂƂ 4 ƂoƂ%Ƃ
^Ƃ%ƂƂ
$Ƃ+ƂƂ Ƃ ś#_!@#!Ƃ ŭƂ!Ƃ
9 Ƃ
9 0Ƃ B )Ƃ $ĝ9 Ƃ, Ƃ Ƃ
36 O c Ƃ ¢Ƃ
ƂƂ ƂƂ Ƃ34 ƂoƂ Ƃ ƂƂ ƂƂ Ƃ
$Ƃ+Ƃ ƂƂ g6_* !#!Ƃ · gƂ
®=¨Ƃ 4 Ƃ 3zƂ Ƃ
/Ƃ
99 Ƃ ŗ@ Ƃ Ƃ Ƃĺ Ƃ
ƂƂ ƂgƂ HƂƂ Ƃ¢Ƃ
4 ƂĂƂ Ƃ 4Ƃ w¦ŢƂ Ƃ
vNNvNNvNNƂ[äà][ž[æſ¿
ğ $Ƃ9 $ Ƃ § Ƃ Ƃş Ƃ =^Ƃţ61ƂƂ =lƂ C $ C Ƃ '$ Ƃ
]Ó¯Ƃ eUaıŀƂKaƂ ' !D@ ź@#Ƃ C $ Ƃ, Ƃ
Ƃ4 Ƃ ƂƂ'Ƃ-ƂŹƂ3 Ƃ IƂƂ Ƃ¡Ƃ
ƂX Ė@Ƃ ŎŕƂ2ŷ 3ƂƂ)- #Ƃ 4 Ƃ w¦Ƃ+ Ƃ
6*ƂhƂ¤3ƂƂ!ƂŨ #Ƃ
'0 'Ƃ9 " Ƃ ƂƂƂ õƂ Ƃ IF I= Ƃ
)Ƃ JƂ01Ƃ)1JƂx ƂƂ2Ƃ ƂEƂ, Ƃ
Ƃ ŦxƂ Ƃ, Ƃ *1 Ƃ zöƂ
¥ƂD 3ƂƂƂůƂ!Ƃ Ƃ
Ƃ6Ƃ ÷Ƃ /Ƃ Ƃ ƂƂ Ƃ Ƃ
Ƃ6Ƃ ƂƂ3Ƃ Ƃ Ƃ ùƂƂ
*w1ƂƂƂ ƂƂƂƂ Ƃ
Ƃ ƂƂ Ƃ± Ö*6 O OƂ
ãG \Ƃ aƂėKĤÿƂĒUUƂ eUþƂ ƂD øƂƂOƂƂ Ƃ Ƃ D3 ÌƂ
`KR>?Â7?ƀRƂ `K7>?Q7?QG7?Ƃ
eQ\Ƃ ƂƂ#ƂnƂ Ƃ HF H=Ƃ
ĊŞĴďƂÕÉspľƂĩpsċČēĘsāƂ 'ƂJƂ01Ƃ'1JƂx ƂƂ2Ƃ ƂEƂ,»Ƃ
ĥčĎąƂĄŁĠīTqƂĹƂĮĢĀTƂ Ƃ ƂũƂ Ƃ,ŪƂ *1 Ƃ 3z#Ƃ
őIJĈTqƂłĦTęTqżƂ pŽŻƂ
a7>7>ËGGƂ Ń 0Ƃ )- nƂ =Ƃ
>¸\\ ŐƂ 'Ƃ-nƂ F+Ƃ54 <Ƃ =Ƃ5<Ƃ
Ƃ $Ƃ 0Ƃ
¾Ƃ šƂ
)-%Ƃ + Ƃ5l I(<Ƃ ( (E5#% +<Ƃ
ĚƂó«Ƃ ×ƂêçØƂěĬƂðüĐĜƂ ñáåŌŒÞÚņűŘƂ
$cƂ Ƃ ( Ƃ5l^(<Ƃ J (Ƃ5# <Ƃ
`KR>?Q7?Á7GìƂ
È>Ƃ 2t )9 0Ƃĭt ƂB " 0Ƃ
4 Ƃ5Ƃ! }Ƃ )- Ƃ 2*@@ %Ƃ řƂ
XƂ '-Ƃ 2* Ƃ
2!Ƃ ( Ƃ
B3ŝÙB Ƃ ( Ƃ
"54* 2!}Ƃ + Ƃ
' $Ƃ u &0Ƃ ćƂ>G>RƂĻĆĕUƂģýƂ
ghD5 F<Ƃ iƂ
Page 617
" Ƃ*!6Ƃ ƂƂ
4 Ƃ '- Ƃ ¼+ EōƂ ( ( Ƃ (iƂ *!Ƃ ƂŰ3ƂƂ
ŮƂ )-Ƃ +(EAƂ ( H îÛƂ ¬Ƃ £! O X1 Ƃ
$cƂ +J% EAƂ Î (EƂ iƂ Ƃ ŧ 6 ƂĽƂƂ
£ ƂƂ!!Ƃh Ƃ
B' Ƃ Ƃ ĸ Ƃ 6*1 yƂ
0Ƃ2* Ƃ ¡Ƃ5¥*ƂD!<Ƃ + Ƃ @ Ŋ*@6Ƃ
đūŲųƂijŖŋƂăƂ â ïôƂ 1 ƂŶƂ#Ƃ
$ B Ƃ #Ƃ%(^Ƃ
2t )9 0ƂC 0C$Ƃ
`K7>?Q7?ÏG7íƂ '-%Ƃ Ŕʼn Ƃ5Ƃh¤<Ƃ 1A {=YƂ
4 ƂƂDƂ! Ƃ 1A {=YƂ
eRƁƂ
XƂ 1AµAF jFªƂ
) "Ƃ )Ƃ Ƃ
u œƂ
* Ƃ Ƃ$Ƃ _Ƃ ƂƂƂ Ƃ5 Eŏ <Ƃ
¶( Ƃ Ƃ + Ƃ
+ ƂAƂ Ƃ úƂƂƂ* Ƃ
Xy Ƃ (Ƃ ƂŴƂ ƂňDƂƂ ûƂƂƂƂ
8. b" ;Ƃ
Y%|FYƂ
%Ƃ M ĵ :Ƃ)&d8.&Ƃ &Ƃ
Ƃ /Ƃr&d8.&Ƃ³Ƃ 8 2rƂ : 8ƂĞƂ Ƃm## #Ƃ
Ƃ /Ƃ. Ƃ
ÔƂ M L :Ƃ"İĔ´Ƃ ..' :Ƃ V .Ƃ";Ƃ ,& Ƃ #Ƃ ,'2 Ƃ Ƃ
Š
éƂ "/&cÐÑS/WƂ Ƃ |Ƃ jƂ jƂ
mƂ ';.&Ķ8Ƃr.L b.&'Ƃ V .Ƃ 8Ƃ"įdB; , Ƃ
Ƃ Ƃ
HƂ M L :Ƃf" ' LWƂ&,"ƂL;Ƃ ,& Ƃ
Ƃ % $' &'' '' '
òƂ M " :Ƃ.f 2Ƃ.fLƂ ħƂ 8/ )SƂ";Ƃ ,&bƂ ń 0Ƃ
%Ƃ M ķ :Ƃ8 V/ WƂ ĉƂ Sb:Ƃ &Ƃ ;Ƃ , ¹Ƃ Ƃ AŤyƂ
'
ƂŬ6ƂƂ %Z+Ƃ
%%Ƃ /Ƃ8 V/WƂ 8ƂĪ S :Ƃ &Ƃ u - I= Ƃ
%ßƂ );.&Ƃ:fĿƂ/ Ƃ&dĨƂ;/ Ƃ;ġ#Ƃ/Ƃ S :Ƃ Ƃ
9VƂ-Ƃ HƂ
! '!' "'% !' ' ' kkkÝÇP P ~
PÅPÀ©P~ÆZƂ"Ŝ , Ƃ 9Ƃ
%Ƃ
B.Ƃ "Ƃ ; "WƂ) ºƂm°Ƃ, ZƂ
% #'# '#' '
-Ƃ +HƂ
Ņ 0Ƃ &-ƂÃ Ƃ
Ä% Ƃ
!ŇZƂ
/Ƃ" ÒM "Ƃ
23P/O=NR=LI
7=I=P:329O,23
! /LI/ PS3GZ,DE
$"%3=vgocvPdnyyqOg
0 LM3IP/O33I=I9
!,-*.0, ywc 0
OLL7=I93293G3R,D,IJP:33TG3R,D7E,P:=I9 '!!% ")
,IL2=`32
& M,=IR323=7PZPGLLR:RLZ3F327=I=P: .3^LI2 zidvcui
' ZLLJMLPSZ>/D3,OP6 S^N ,2#$)
Z=I2LZZ?,IL2=`32EVG=IVG8 .3^LI2
'('0) / +0 73I/3,SMOLM3OS^F=I3 'G=I cgg
2LLO .3^LI2 $"%3=wgocwPdmyyqOg
OLL7 $$) I $n Nrcdi
3\=PS=I9PC^D@9:SP .3^LI2 Nnyiwo ,|pywc)%)
0!# ! #% $0& 0
")(3 /yyqogliPi
Nnyiwo,|oywc)%)
/;O=PRLN;3O,DR
/;O=PR=,I,GLPP
")(3/yyqogliP~ii
Nnyiwo ,|oywc)%)
A
3]BPR=I9.PD bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbsb
)*
)
1 QUW0Page 618
Sno gyduiwo cw
ov |uivyj ipdicwg
ncqq ucovni zzi|yj
ni,moid [ny ncqq
NOLN3OR^D=I3 !%.PD covcqqdyuuywqc
cy|cwgyni{|i i|if
|tln owhgovlni
dyz|olny
)*
O3X=P=LIk
x
0 0 ) 0
)+
_LI=I9
znc i}i
dyzzidwy 0
C=X,(! gci
P24Y(!!"
" ""0 0 0
O5aLI=I9 /,P5 0 ucz|eidvy
?@^;]L\`LZX³
!³ DMXM^I@?³G]5?@³
$³ ;ZX;³^a@V³i5RR³
(³ Z\@X³^;]@@XLXG³
+(,³@³L³^³]³
+³ ]ZZDLXG³@?G@³V@`5R³5X?³^I@@`³V@b5R³DR5^ILXG ³ \ ª ³5¥"²³1, 1³
5XZ?Lo@?³ -$³$, ³ (1³
,³ \5LX`@?³@MD^³i³^VZZ`I³ `Zi@S@?³ELXL^I ³8@mZX?³
iZZ? \Z^`i;U^@5] ³`m\³ ¤³ ³
/³ iLX?Zi³5XZ?LpB?³5SeVLXeV³D]5V@ ³8@mZX?³ 5 ? *+1³
[:³ D@X;@³5a³\]Z\@]am³RLX@ ³ VLX³
2³ ?ZZ] ³8@mZX?³ ££³
' +(,³@³L³^³]³
}|}|}|}|}|³~ ) ³ ³ @lM^aLXG³^QmRLGIa^ ³8@mZX?³ ++1 X +¤ \ ³
]ZZF³ \ ³7±³1, 1³
+(,³\]Z\@]cL@^³f<³
(1 .³@³< ³^¤ ¤³
\ ®³5±³1, 1³
*&+$,-#.%'/01
2 "3 4 4 4
(1 0³@³< ³^¤ ¤³
\ ® ³5±³1, 1³
(
) !44 r³rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrstu v xy@kL³ z^`y LXyHy9{¢³
rrrrw x $ \]Z\@]dm³TOX@³
13 ³
XZa@4³CkL^aLXH³9eLR?LXH³@R@h5aLZX³aZ³]@V5LX³
|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|³r¯ ) #%³
]ZZD³
³ >³% % ³_cg=KY³W6³
Page 619
a£³¨ ¦³£³³
£¤¨ ¤³³£ ¡ ³³
N³ £ ¤ ¤°³
rrrrrrrrrrr³\]Z\@] `m³TLX@Pr³r³ 7¤ ¦ ³j³£³
¤³ ³¬ ³
£¦¤©¤°¤ £ « ³
¤£ ¨¦ ³
°¤³§³
13 ³
]@hL^LZX³
³ +³ -³
nZXLXH³
£«³
³ &&!-&(³
QLh5 0 $³ ¤ ³
^?Ah³³ .$$(³
\5\\³$ (,-.³ $!*,³
]BqZXLXH³<7^B³$ ³ £ ¤ ³
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Crystal DeVelis
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 11:12 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Zoning case Z-43-21, 4048 North 40th Place
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
The above case has come to my attention as a nearby interested neighbor.
I fail to understand why the applicant is seeking an R5 designation. Is it just to match the existing
property? This is to be an office expansion and while I believe the applicant's motives are good, zoning changes
are forever and this would leave the property vulnerable to future multifamily development within a single-
family neighborhood. Would it be any more difficult or costly for the applicants to have both properties zoned
R-O? That would allow their expansion but not jeopardize the neighborhood should ownership change.
Thank you for reading.
-- Crystal DeVelis
4351 E. Whitton Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 620
Reference-
Case No.: Z-43-21
Address: 4048 North 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
August 25, 2021
Attn: Sofia Mastikhina
We are writing to you to share our concerns with case number Z-43-21. As homeowners who live
directly east of proposed expansion we are opposed to having additional commercial parcels infiltrate
our neighborhood. After attending the August 12th, 2021 neighborhood meeting we are following up
accordingly. Below are a series of our concerns.
x The proposed plan calls for a community garden. Due to the area we feel this has safety
concerns and will attract nomadic citizens. Recently we had package theft in the middle of a
weekend day. We feel that a community garden would increase foot traffic and lead to
additional theft, possible property damage and decrease the feel of a quiet neighborhood
located in a cul-de-sac. Please reference Complaint No.: 100483610 & Incident No.:
202100001160432 with the City Prosecutor’s Office.
x The proposed plan is inconsistent with other streets/communities in the area in which most
have one parcel of commercial zoning whereas this would create two on the west side & only
one of the east side. If allowed to rezone, we feel it would not stop there as opportunities to
continue to infiltrate the neighborhood would be allowed diminishing the community.
x The proposed plan is removing a potential new home buyer or rental home. As housing
affordability & rental affordability continues to rise we feel that keeping the residence at 4048
40th place is best for the citizens in our community as potential future citizens.
x The parking proposal calls for seven addition spots for a total of 20, 13 of which are existing.
During the meeting on August 12th Studio MA ownership & team members stated that they are
looking to expand 12-13 employees in the future adding to their current of 12 employees which
does not require enough parking spots for each team member. One of these parking spots is
designated handicap. The result would be parking on the street which creates issues for
services, safety issues for children in the area and contributes to the local restaurant overflow
parking that invades our neighborhood most evenings.
In closing we strongly disagree with the rezoning in our neighborhood and would like to understand
what steps to ensure our voice is heard based on the above concerns.
Page 621
Amber Skoog & Matthew Reyhons
Residents of 4041 North 40th Place
Page 622
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-43-21-6
Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request From R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence District)
Request To R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
Proposed Use Professional office
Location Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including the location,
current and surrounding zoning and land uses, General Plan Land Use Map
designations, and proposal. She explained that the applicant is requesting to expand an
existing office use onto a parcel immediately to the south of the existing building. The
original request was to rezone the additional parcel to R-5 (Multifamily Residence
District) to be compatible with the current zoning on the existing property. However,
after working with staff and the community, the applicant amended their request to
include both the existing and the new parcels and requested to rezone both to R-O
(Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District), which accommodates their office
use while ensuring that no high-density multifamily development is permitted on the
properties. Mastikhina then presented the proposed site plan and elevations, the staff
recommendation for approval, and recommended stipulations.
Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, stated that the existing property is
owned by his client, Studio Ma, which a local architecture firm that has been operating
for over 20 years. He presented a rendering of what the building expansion will look like
in relation to adjacent homes, noting the compatibility of the building height and the
enhanced modern architecture. He explained that his clients love the neighborhood and
wish to expand their growing business at this location instead of finding other another
office space elsewhere in the city. He outlined some of the key elements of the
proposal, which include green building design, no vehicular access on 40th Place, and
beautiful architectural design. He also noted the increased setback along the southern
property line, where the property will abut a single-family home. The current setback is
four feet, and the redevelopment will increase it to over 12 feet. He then explained that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 623
the request at hand was modified to downzone the existing property to a less intense
zoning designation in response to community concerns regarding the potential for future
multifamily development per the R-5 district. He then outlined the neighborhood
outreach conducted for this request, which included the applicants knocking on
neighbors’ doors to discuss the case, as well as a total of three neighborhood meetings.
MOTION
Barry Paceley made a motion to approve the request per the staff recommendation.
Daniel Sharaby seconded the motion.
VOTE
11-0: Motion passes with committee members Swart, Abbott, Bair, Bayless, Thraen,
Eichelkraut, Garcia, Miller, Paceley, Sharaby, and Tribken in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 624
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 19
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-43-21-6
Location: Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road
From: R1-6 and R-5
To: R-O
Acreage: 0.70
Proposal: Professional Office
Applicant: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc.
Owner: Christopher Alt and Christiana Moss
Representative: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc.
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 10/5/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee, with additional stipulations.
Motion Discussion: There was discussion about adding a stipulation to require “no parking” or
“permit parking only” signs along 40th Place.
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-43-21-6, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation with the additional stipulations as
read into the record.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and Howard
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal will provide an appropriate transition between a major arterial street and
an established single-family neighborhood.
2. The proposal will provide an opportunity for an existing small business located on a
major arterial street to expand in the Camelback East area and serve the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. The proposal is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood
and will provide an appropriate land use transition from the commercial uses along
Indian School Road.
Page 625
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
June 25, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. That there be a maximum building height of one story and 15 feet.
2. There shall be no vehicular access from 40th Place.
3. The required landscape setback along 40th Place shall include large canopy shade
trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be minimum 4-inch
caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch caliper. Five, five-gallon
shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall provide minimum 75
percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the southern portion of the site shall be planted
with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas located within the southern 65 feet of the site
shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent
shade at maturity, as approved or modified by Planning and Development Department.
6. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred
Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative
pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually
contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 626
12. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION
FILE FOR RECORD.
13. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO EITHER INSTALL NO PARKING SIGNS OR
PERMIT PARKING ONLY SIGNS ALONG 40TH PLACE.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 627
Attachment E
171-26-015171-26-016171-26-017171-26-018171-26-019 171-26-020 171-26-021 171-26-022
171-26-058
170-32-136
171-26-057
171-26-059
170-32-090 170-32-089
171-26-061G
171-26-062A
171-26-060
171-26-064D
171-26-067B 171-26-067A
170-32-100B
171-26-064C
171-26-062B 171-26-066B
171-26-061B
171-26-065B 171-26-065A
IND IAN SC HO OL RD
127-18-100C
127-18-100D
127-17-001
40TH ST
127-17-017
127-17-103
127-17-002
127-17-016
127-17-108
127-17-107 127-17-003
127-17-015
40TH PL
127-18-100C
127-17-004
127-17-014
127-17-106D
127-17-104A
127-17-005
127-17-102F
127-17-013
127-17-106C 127-17-007B
127-17-012
127-17-007C
127-18-102B 127-17-106B
Legend
127-17-008
127-17-111 127-17-113
127-17-011A
127-17-112
Zoning Petition Area 127-17-114
127-17-119
Proposed Amendment Area 127-17-009
127-17-115 127-17-117 # of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 6/17 = 35%
127-17-089
127-17-116
127-18-115
Lots/Tracts/Condos 127-17-118 % Area = 0.81ac./3.93ac. = 21%
Signed Petition
127-17-078 127-17-080
127-17-082
3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
127-17-083 127-17-084 127-17-086127-17-087127-17-088
127-17-079 127-17-081 127-17-085
Petition Verification Map
I 0 45 90 Feet
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 11/15/2021
Page 628
for Z-43-21-6
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: 12/1/2021
APPLICATION NO/ Z-43-21-6 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southwest corner of opposition x applicant
40th Place and
Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85013
PC 11/4/2021 4026 North 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC
HEARING CC 12/1/2021 Jennifer Johnson Collier
(480) 216-4779
jlynjohnson@aol.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Community concerns have not been addresses fairly or ethically.
“No parking” signs are not a viable solution.
See attachment for details.
RECEIVED BY: Kim Steadman RECEIVED ON: 11/9/2021
Alan Stephenson Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek Samantha Keating
Tricia Gomes Paul M. Li
Racelle Escolar Village Planner: Sofia Mastikhina
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Page 629
Page 630
Page 631
Page 632
Page 633
Page 634
Page 635
Page 636
Page 637
Page 638
Page 639
Page 640
$WWDFKPHQW)
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
,]DvlCr¦<]I¦
,_¦vT¦7]vQp_¦7fHr_pZ¦,vnla`vp¦
¦? ¦?B]`pZp¦<Q¦.ivv|¦
7]vQr_+¦ $! ¦
:R&¦ =xxw¦Uw}¦:R¤wqcq[¦:R{R¦ )xxkN@wq¦3w '¦¥ ¦
%¦3 ¦ ^¦8g¦8^wRqc ¦)wqA¦%"%¦
,]DvmG¦<]I¦GP¦7jZ¦,vo`vpQ|(¦
0¦yyv|¦Q¦|Q£vp_pZ¦|QzQ¦v¦Bffv¦Q¦y|vyQ|¦fvOBQP¦B¦ $¦4¦ ]¦7i¦7]vQpa¦*|`£vrB¦
$!$¦v¦MQ¦|Q£vpQP¦Xvl¦;h #¦v¦; ¦ >]Q¦*yyi`OG¦]C¦QyfB`pQP¦Q`|¦|Q£vp`pZ¦|QzQ¦ap¦\QB¦PQB`f¦
GP¦a¦a¦l¢¦pPQ|GPdZ¦B¦Q`|¦ |Q£vpapZ¦|QzQ¦b¦pQOQL¦ar¦v|PQ|¦v¦Bffv¦]Qa|¦F|QBP¢¦QapZ¦
M_fP_rZ¦ v¦ Q¡GP¦ 1¦ l¢¦ vyap`vp¦ Byy|vE¦ vV¦Q`|¦ |Q£vupZ¦ |QzQ¦ _fh¦ rv¦ pQZBQf¢¦ alyBO¦ Q¦
vPbpZ¦JQB¦M¦aii¦_rQBP¦Eiv¦B¦QgOvlQP¦MapQ¦v¦Q¡GP¦Qe¦Wv|bp ¦
2¦]v¦/¦Yff¢¦yyv¦]Q¦*yyiaOCp¦£vp`pZ¦|QzQ¦MQOBQ¦]Q¦|QzQ¦`ff¦rQ`Q|¦]K¦rv|¦
rQZBQi¢¦`lyBO¦]Q¦vpParZ¦JQB¦*OOv|P`pZi¢¦0¦Ml_¦_¦fQ|¦v¦S|Q¦l¢¦yyv|¦
9vyQ
¦6tQ~¦5ClQ¦sp¦
-BQ¦
Page 641
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
6$9MdI?&h!6$Gh
7\hI/h 6I-B7eh <$BB9@4hI??7RR8I@h
h#h#$R69@4SI@h![--Sh=IIMh
6I-D;eh h
( % "$("(' (!%#$( $ ( ( (
(( $( ( &(" ' ( (
6$9NcI?$Ah!6'h&+h <$H4hI??:RR8I@-MRh
hR]JJINShS6-hM-gIC8C5hM-L]-RShSIh$<=IchV6-hJMIJ-MSfh=I*$S-+h$Sh h h S6h <h 6I.9ehM9gI@$h
hSIh)-hM-gI@-+h2I?hSIh "6-hJJ=9*&Sh6$Rh-eJ=$9C-+hW6-7MhM-gIB8@4hM-L]-RSh7@h4M-$Sh+-S%9<h
$@+h9Sh8Rh?fh]@+-MRS&+8C4h Y$Sh Y-7MhM-gI@9@4hM-L]-RSh8Rh@-*-RR(fh7ChIM+-MhSIh$=)^:<+9@4h SIh -eJ$@+h @h ?fh IJ8FI@h $JJMIa$R]PI^@+9C4h$M-$h)]Shc9<*I?-+h)]R8C-RRhSIh-eJ&+hS6-9Mh1IZO@S h
@hR6INUhh3<9*&SRhM-gIC9C4hM-L]-RSh)-*$]R-hS6-hM-L]-RShc7<@-4$S9b-
!9C*-M-
NIJ-Qh c@-Mh $?-hE@Xh
$T-h
Page 642
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
.#//>GI8)I .8(6/FI 2#66/6-I855/==/86I
I! I !#=./6-?86I >;((>I7&I 288;I
.8(6/FI"I I
& " !& &% & # !& ! & &&
&&!&& $& % & &
.#/
I=A998;>I>.(I;(H86/6-I;(:A(=>I>8I#238DI>.(I 9;89(<>GI28%#>('I#>III>.I 3 I .8(6/FI;/H86#I
I>8I$(I;(H86('I+85I 4I>8I I .(I992/%#6>I.#=I(F92#/6('I>.(/;I;(H86/6-I;(:B(=>I/6I-;(#>I'(>#/2I
#6'I/>I/=I5GI A6'(;=?#6'/6-I >.#>I>.(/;I;(H86/6-I;(:A(=>I/=I6(%(==#;GI/6I8;'(;I>8I#228DI>.(/;I#2;(#'GI(F/=>/6-I
$A/2'/6-I >8I (F9#6' I 6I 5GI 89/6/86I #99;8C#2I 8)I >.(/;I ;(H86/6-I ;(:A(=>I D/22I 68>I 6(-#>/C(2GI /59#%>I >.(I
=A;;8A6'/6-I#;(#I$A>ID/22I/6=>(#'I#228EI#ID(2%85('I$A=/6(==I>8I(F9#6'I>.(/;I*8>9;/6> I
6I=.8<@I I,32GI =A998;>I>.(I992/%#6>=I;(H86/6-I;(:A(=>I$(%#A=(I>.(I;(:A(=>ID/22I6(/>.(;I.#;5I68;I
6(-#>/C(2GI/59#%>I>.(I=A;;8A6'/6-I#;(# I%%8;'/6-2GII=A$5/>I>./=I2(?>(;I>8I(F9;(==I5GI=A998;> I
/6%(;(2GI
Page 643
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
!C1F]SM1Nw,C1NJw
"E_lwS;w)CS8NFkw)L2NNFN@w"SMME^^ESNw
w/ w/1^CENA`SNw,_W88_wtbw#KSSWw
)CS8NEkw 0w w
* '""!$&*!$*)! *#'%& "" & ! *!* *
** &* *! (*$ )! * *
"C1IWgSM1Nw,C1NJw1N7w)K1NNFN@w"SMMG^^GSN8W^ w
$w^cTTSZ`w_C8wW8uSNFN@wW9Vc9^`w`Sw1KLShw_D8wTWST8W`mwKS51`87w1`w w& w`Cw)K w)CS8NFkw WEuSN1w
w_Sw49wW9uSN97w>SMw+K w`Sw+ 'w .D9w TTKE51N`wC1^w9kTL1FN87w`D8EWwW9uSNEN@wW:Vc9^_wENw@W81_w78_1ELw
1N7wG`wE^wMnwcN79W^`1R7EN@w`K1_w`C8GWwW8uSNGN@w W8Vc8^`wG^wN859^^1WowENwSW79Ww`Sw1LLSgw`C8FWw1KW817nw8kF^`GN@w
4cEL7GN@w `Sw 8kT1N7w $Nw MpwSTGNGSNw 1TTWSe2Kw S^cWWScN7GN@w1W81w4c`wgGKLwGN^`817w1LKSiw1wj9K5SM87w4c^EN9^^w`Sw8kT1N7w_C8EWw=S`TWEN`w
$Nw^CSW_ w%w?LKpw^cTTSW`w_C9w TTLE51N`^wW8uSNEN@wW9Vc9^`w4851c^8w`C9wW9Vc8^`wgGKKwN8F`C8WwC1WMwNSWw
N8@1`Ff8Kqw EMT15`w`C9w^cWWScN7GN@w1W81w 55SW7EN@Km w$w^c4ME`w`DF^wK8`_9Ww`Sw9kTW9^^wMrw^cTTSW` w
,FN59W8Ks w
*OvU6\Xw(P6Yw-HBQ3ad[w
Page 644
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
Page 645
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ
November2,2021
CityofPhoenixPlanningandDevelopmentDepartment,
ZoningSection
200WestWashingtonStreet,2ndFloor
Phoenix,Arizona85003
Reference:ZͲ43Ͳ21Ͳ6
DearmembersoftheZoningBoard,
IsupporttherezoningrequestsubmittedforStudioMa.Iliveclosetothebuildingandfeelthat
thearchitecturaldesign,quality,andsustainabilitywouldonlyfurtherenhancetheoverall
characteroftheneighborhoodandgeneralareaasawhole.
ThisenvironmentaldesignandplanningfirmhaspromisedtobelowͲintensityuseandthatall
visitingtrafficwouldberestrictedtoIndianSchool.Ibelievetheproposeddesignissuitable,
wellͲconcealedfrompublicviewbothfromthegroundsandfromoutsidethegroundsand
providesneededamenitiesforvisitors.
IurgetheZoningBoardtoapprovetheproposedrezoningtoallowfortheexpansionofStudio
Ma.
DavidSpetzler
NeighborhoodResident
Page 646
3$7%
Page 647
Attachment G
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
September 30, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21-6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of our neighborhood’s feedback about case no. Z-
43-21-6. During a recent neighborhood meeting we reviewed all options as well as well as discussing the
benefits and concerns each member had and we came to a unanimous consensus that we are opposed
to the rezoning of the 4048 North 40th Place property. Discussion points we feel strongly about justifying
our reasoning are as follows:
• Parking – Studio MA’s proposed project plan does not include enough parking. Per Studio Ma’s
projected employee growth, future parking spots and strategy for them to encourage employee
to leverage public transportation, walk to work & or ride bicycles to work is not a concrete
option to combat the parking shortage. We believe this would cause an overflow of parking on
our street of both employees as well as customer/clients of Studio Ma. With the overflow of
parking this will increase the traffic in our neighborhood. The variables of a bus stop, business
traffic on an already high traffic Indian School Road we believe this will create accessibility
exiting our neighborhood as well as a safety issue for all.
• Neighborhood – North 40th Place is a rare cul-de-sac in the area that is composed of long-time &
new homeowners that want to keep it a neighborhood. We feel that by having another lot of
our small neighborhood being zoned as commercial it will continue to happen diminishing our
neighborhood. Currently, our street consists of thirteen homes of the original fifteen lots. The
remaining two lots side to Indian School Road and are business occupied. By allowing
commercial zoning further into our neighborhood it takes away from being a desired location to
live, raise a family. In addition, it provides for an avenue of the same rezoning to happen and
take away further homes and neighbors from our community.
• Benefit – we do not see how this project benefits our neighborhood or members in anyway,
rather it inhibits our ability to cultivate the neighborhood atmosphere.
• Property Value – members of the neighborhood, especially those closest to 4048 N 40th Place,
have concerns of the adverse impact the commercial space will have on our home values.
Page 648
September 30, 2021
Page 2
Estimates from 5-10% reduction have been given to us by real estate professionals with the
knowledge and experience of how situations such as this has impacted other communities.
• Home Prices & Availability – home prices have steadily increased over the last 18-24 months
making it difficult for some to purchase a home. In addition, new home starts in the Phoenix
Metro outpace the national average while vacant home inventory is at an all-time low of 1.22*.
Active listings in the Phoenix Metro is 66% less than 18 months ago. We feel that removing a
residence is not the correct thing to do given market conditions.
*Vacant Home Inventory Index is a number, measured in months, until zero new homes would be
available for purchase. Source: NAHB
Housing Price Trend –
Housing Units by Building Permits Trend –
Page 649
September 30, 2021
Page 3
Active Resale Listings Trend
In summary, we as a neighborhood, based on the above reason are opposed to the rezoning of 4048 N
40th Place. If you have any questions about the above statements, please let us know. Thank you for
your time, consideration as well as your understanding.
Sincerely,
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Neighborhood Members: Address:
Jen Johnson Collier 4026 N. 40th Place
Matthew Reyhons & Amber Skoog 4041 N. 40th Place
Ron & Ruth Elwardt 4027 N 40th Place
Erin Vecchia 4022 N 40th Place
Anthony Delagarza 4037 N 40th Place
Katie Baccus & Jason Lupin 4025 N 40th Place
Bertha Ann Howard 4032 N 40th Place
Mike Bivens 4034 N 40th Place
Page 650
September 30, 2021
Page 4
Brad Efune 4014 N 40th Place
Heather & Kyle Greiert 4018 N 40th Place
Barbara Foster 4008 N 40th Place
Page 651
October 1st, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of my personal concerns on case no. Z-43-
21. I am the newest resident on the street with my home purchase closing late July 2021 during a
market high. I can tell you I was immediately drawn to my homes original 1950’s qualities as
well as the friendly neighbors found in this community. At the time of writing an offer and then
later contract for my home, the intentions to change zoning on the residence three lots north of
mine were never disclosed. Had this occurred, I might have reevaluated other options, even in
this limited housing inventory market.
With my home being fairly original and tenant occupied for over a decade, I have a considerable
amount of work and expense in my future. I have concerns about my property value being
negatively impacted if a business is a few doors down from my front door. My lot already has a
lot of vehicle traffic and foot traffic across my back fence and we have commercial garbage truck
pick up at 4:30 each morning not to mention evening music from food establishments weekend
evenings. It does seem that our neighborhood is at a crossroads with business encroaching from
many sides. I strongly oppose loosing another home on our street or an opportunity to have
another family participate in our small tightknit community.
Sincerely,
Jen Johnson Collier
4026 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 652
Page 653
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
October 2, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21-6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
We would like to express our concern regarding the rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place. We have lived at
4027 N 40th Place for 30 years. Our neighborhood is a small, clearly defined neighborhood. We are on a
cul-de-sac which allows only one entry and exit point. There are currently fourteen residences on the
street. We have enjoyed a close-knit community over the years. We raised our family here and recently
several new young families with children have moved into the neighborhood.
On our street, we have seen eight renovations, remodels or complete rebuilds since 2017. We as a
community have invested a great deal of resources into our properties with the assumption that our
street (including 4048 N. 40th Place) would remain residential.
In addition, in the last eighteen months, six of our residents purchased homes without knowledge that
there might be any kind of zoning change imminent.
We are anxious to preserve the community environment that we have worked hard to maintain and
foster. We feel that the expansion of Studio Ma would adversely impact our small neighborhood both in
its community feel and property values.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 654
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Erin Vecchia
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 1:49 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Sophie,
I am sending this email in regards to the petition to rezone the property at 4048 N 40th Pl. I purchased my home at 4022
N 40th Pl in May of 2021. Based on the extreme housing market I had to pay $50,000 over asking at $1.225 million
dollars. I had no idea or knowledge that there was a residential property on the street, three houses away from my new
home, that was trying to be rezoned until I moved in. I firmly believe that this rezoned residential property will not bring
value to our small community, only hinder it. I have also experienced issues with employees from the Studio MA parking
on our street in front of our homes in the daytime, restaurant parking issues in the evening and general additional traffic
zipping down our cul‐de‐sac from confusion on if it’s a through street. We also hear garbage trucks at 4:30 am from the
commercial and apartments to the rear of my home. I am not in support of the home being rezoned creating additional
issues based on limited parking and more employees. This is a small, quaint street and there are plenty of other
commercial spaces, in already designated areas, that could be used for an expanded office building.
I appreciate the time to listen to our thoughts and concerns.
Thanks,
Erin Reitz Vecchia
4022 N 40th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85018
480‐334‐3118
Page 655
Racelle Escolar
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:57 PM
To: Jay Swart
Cc: Racelle Escolar; Gregory L Harmon; PDD Camelback East VPC; Alan Stephenson; Matthew William Ryne Reyhons
Subject: Case Z-43-21-6
Attachments: Case No. Z-43-21 Matthew Reyhons & Amber Skoog Aug 26th Letter no confirmation.msg; Erin Vecchia
Submission & Confirmation.msg; Fw Case No. Z-43-21 - Jen Collier Johnson Submission & Confirmation.msg;
Fwd Rezoning of 4048 N#Z-43-21-6 Ruth Elwardt Submission & Confirmation.msg; Case No. z-43-21-6 Letter to
Alan Stephenson Director Planning & Development Director.msg; RE Case Z-43-21-6 Communication of Request
for Case to be Reviewed.msg; RE Case Z-43-21-6 Community Letter & Confirmation.msg; RE Case Z-43-21-6
Email from Sofia about Contact Information.msg; Re Case Z-43-21-6 Letter of Apology for Error.msg;
CommunityLetter_20211003_V5_MR.docx
Mr. Swart,
I hope this message finds you well. During Tuesday October 5th Village Planning Committee meeting's second agenda
item was for Case No. 43‐21‐6 the rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place. Residents of our neighborhood have been involved in
both neighborhood meetings held by Studio MA as well as holding our own resident only meeting prior to the Village
Planning Committee meeting. Attached are the submissions sent to Sofia Mastikhina of our concerns as well as
acknowledgements by Sofia. I have also attached the letter in which was written on behalf of the residents after we took
a vote which was unanimous in opposing the rezoning. These submissions while acknowledged by Sofia never had the
chance to be discussed. After discussions with the residents after the committee's meeting, most of whom
were present, we the residents of North 40th Place are requesting the VPC to hear our case at the next assembly given
the above mentioned mistake. We have concerns on how four submissions opposing the case were missed.
Please let us know if this is not the proper avenue of concern as we feel that skipping the resident's opportunity to speak
in the rezoning process is unfair.
Thank You,
Matthew Reyhons
admissible
Page1 656
Racelle Escolar
From: Matt Reyhons
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:06 AM
To: sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov
Cc: Matthew William Ryne Reyhons; Amber Wagers
Subject: Case No. Z-43-21
Attachments: Rezoning Proposal 4048 N 40th PL Phoenix AZ 85018 V1.docx
Good Morning,
Please find attached letter in reference to resident feedback regarding the rezoning of 4048 North 40th Place, Case No.
Z‐43‐21.
Thank You in advance for your assistance.
Best Regards,
Matthew & Amber
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic
download of this pictu re from the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Page1 657
Reference‐
Case No.: Z‐43‐21
Address: 4048 North 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
August 25, 2021
Attn: Sofia Mastikhina
We are writing to you to share our concerns with case number Z‐43‐21. As homeowners who live
directly east of proposed expansion we are opposed to having additional commercial parcels infiltrate
our neighborhood. After attending the August 12th, 2021 neighborhood meeting we are following up
accordingly. Below are a series of our concerns.
The proposed plan calls for a community garden. Due to the area we feel this has safety
concerns and will attract nomadic citizens. Recently we had package theft in the middle of a
weekend day. We feel that a community garden would increase foot traffic and lead to
additional theft, possible property damage and decrease the feel of a quiet neighborhood
located in a cul‐de‐sac. Please reference Complaint No.: 100483610 & Incident No.:
202100001160432 with the City Prosecutor’s Office.
The proposed plan is inconsistent with other streets/communities in the area in which most
have one parcel of commercial zoning whereas this would create two on the west side & only
one of the east side. If allowed to rezone, we feel it would not stop there as opportunities to
continue to infiltrate the neighborhood would be allowed diminishing the community.
The proposed plan is removing a potential new home buyer or rental home. As housing
affordability & rental affordability continues to rise we feel that keeping the residence at 4048
40th place is best for the citizens in our community as potential future citizens.
The parking proposal calls for seven addition spots for a total of 20, 13 of which are existing.
During the meeting on August 12th Studio MA ownership & team members stated that they are
looking to expand 12‐13 employees in the future adding to their current of 12 employees which
does not require enough parking spots for each team member. One of these parking spots is
designated handicap. The result would be parking on the street which creates issues for
services, safety issues for children in the area and contributes to the local restaurant overflow
parking that invades our neighborhood most evenings.
In closing we strongly disagree with the rezoning in our neighborhood and would like to understand
what steps to ensure our voice is heard based on the above concerns.
Amber Skoog & Matthew Reyhons
Residents of 4041 North 40th Place
Page 658
Racelle Escolar
From: Ruth Elwardt
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:47 AM
To: Erin Vecchia; Matt Reynolds; Jen Johnson
Subject: Fwd: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z-43-21-6
I am forwarding what Sophia sent me. She was aware that I asked to speak. This all seems a little fishing to me. There
was either gross incompetence or we were possibly excluded on purpose. I would hate to think that that was the
case. Sophia emailed me on Monday so I don’t understand how she could forgotten about our requests by Tuesday.
It’s sounds like the Planning Committee will not reconsider their decision or call another vote—she seemed to indicate
we just have to attend the next meeting. I would like Sophia or some representative of the planning committee to
express the fact that they failed to recognize our concerns at the last meeting and that the vote was taken without that
information.
Thanks for you efforts. I appreciate the time you’ve put in.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ruth Elwardt
Date: October 6, 2021 at 1:24:43 PM MST
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
Thank you for your speedy response. I appreciate your efforts to correct the situation. As you can
imagine, we were taken totally off guard last night.
Thanks again. We are very appreciative.
Ruth
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 6, 2021, at 9:47 AM, Sofia Mastikhina wrote:
Good morning Ruth,
Thank you for reaching out, and my sincere apologies that you did not get a
chance to speak last night. That was my oversight, as I only saw your letter,
which I did forward to the committee, along with the other opposition letters that I
received in the days leading up to the meeting.
The same thing happened with Mr. Reyhons, where I received his letter,
distributed it to the committee, but overlooked his request to speak. He has
already contacted the committee and our department director, so we are all
aware of this. He has also requested that the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee hear and vote on this case again.
Page1 659
This case is scheduled for the November 4, 2021 Planning Commission hearing.
The agenda for this meeting has not been posted yet but, when it is, you will be
able to access it here: https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices.
The agenda will have an email address where you will send your request to
speak on the matter.
For the case to be heard by the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
again, the Planning Commission will have to vote on doing so. Thus, you will
have to request this from the Commission.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information and,
again, my sincere apologies for this oversight.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Ruth Elwardt
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:37 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z‐43‐21‐6
Sophia,
I am wondering just exactly what happened at the planning committee meeting. It was
stated at the outset that there was no opposition which clearly was not the case as we
as a neighborhood sent a letter signed by most if not all our neighbors opposing the
project. You acknowledged our letter so you did receive it. Several other residents
wrote personal letters that I am aware of. I also wrote a personal letter which you
acknowledged. I asked to speak at the meeting which you can affirm by looking at the
above email stream.
We as a community are very disappointed that our concerns were not acknowledged or
heard.
Please respond to these concerns.
Ruth Elwardt
4027 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ
Sent from my iPhone
Page2 660
On Oct 5, 2021, at 9:06 AM, Sofia Mastikhina
wrote:
Good morning Ruth,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and
forwarded a copy to the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Ruth Elwardt
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 4:35 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z‐43‐21‐6
Dear Sofia,
I have attached a letter expressing my concerns about the rezoning of
4048 N. 40th Place and would like to speak at the Planning Commission
Hearing on October 5th. Case number: Z‐43‐21‐6
Thank you for your consideration,
Ruth Elwardt
Page3 661
Racelle Escolar
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 9:04 AM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog; Anthony Delagarza; Barb Foster; Brad Efune; dan pennington; Erin Vecchia; Heather Greiert; jason
Lupin; Jen Johnson; Katie Baccus; Keenan Tighe; michael Bivens; Ron Elwardt; rosanne pennington; Ruth Elwardt
Subject: RE: Case Z-43-21-6
Good morning Matthew,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog; Anthony Delagarza ; Barb Foster
; Brad Efune ; dan pennington ; Erin Vecchia
; Heather Greiert ; jason Lupin ; Jen
Johnson; Katie Baccus ; Keenan Tighe ; Matt
Reynolds; michael Bivens ; Ron Elwardt
; rosanne pennington ; Ruth Elwardt
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page1 662
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
September 30, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z‐43‐21‐6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of our neighborhood’s feedback about case no. Z‐
43‐21‐6. During a recent neighborhood meeting we reviewed all options as well as well as discussing the
benefits and concerns each member had and we came to a unanimous consensus that we are opposed
to the rezoning of the 4048 North 40th Place property. Discussion points we feel strongly about justifying
our reasoning are as follows:
Parking – Studio MA’s proposed project plan does not include enough parking. Per Studio Ma’s
projected employee growth, future parking spots and strategy for them to encourage employee
to leverage public transportation, walk to work & or ride bicycles to work is not a concrete
option to combat the parking shortage. We believe this would cause an overflow of parking on
our street of both employees as well as customer/clients of Studio Ma. With the overflow of
parking this will increase the traffic in our neighborhood. The variables of a bus stop, business
traffic on an already high traffic Indian School Road we believe this will create accessibility
exiting our neighborhood as well as a safety issue for all.
Neighborhood – North 40th Place is a rare cul‐de‐sac in the area that is composed of long‐time &
new homeowners that want to keep it a neighborhood. We feel that by having another lot of
our small neighborhood being zoned as commercial it will continue to happen diminishing our
neighborhood. Currently, our street consists of thirteen homes of the original fifteen lots. The
remaining two lots side to Indian School Road and are business occupied. By allowing
commercial zoning further into our neighborhood it takes away from being a desired location to
live, raise a family. In addition, it provides for an avenue of the same rezoning to happen and
take away further homes and neighbors from our community.
Benefit – we do not see how this project benefits our neighborhood or members in anyway,
rather it inhibits our ability to cultivate the neighborhood atmosphere.
Property Value – members of the neighborhood, especially those closest to 4048 N 40th Place,
have concerns of the adverse impact the commercial space will have on our home values.
Page 663
September 30, 2021
Page 2
Estimates from 5‐10% reduction have been given to us by real estate professionals with the
knowledge and experience of how situations such as this has impacted other communities.
Home Prices & Availability – home prices have steadily increased over the last 18‐24 months
making it difficult for some to purchase a home. In addition, new home starts in the Phoenix
Metro outpace the national average while vacant home inventory is at an all‐time low of 1.22*.
Active listings in the Phoenix Metro is 66% less than 18 months ago. We feel that removing a
residence is not the correct thing to do given market conditions.
*Vacant Home Inventory Index is a number, measured in months, until zero new homes would be
available for purchase. Source: NAHB
Housing Price Trend –
Housing Units by Building Permits Trend –
Page 664
September 30, 2021
Page 3
Active Resale Listings Trend
In summary, we as a neighborhood, based on the above reason are opposed to the rezoning of 4048 N
40th Place. If you have any questions about the above statements, please let us know. Thank you for
your time, consideration as well as your understanding.
Sincerely,
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Neighborhood Members: Address:
Jen Johnson Collier 4026 N. 40th Place
Matthew Reyhons & Amber Skoog 4041 N. 40th Place
Ron & Ruth Elwardt 4027 N 40th Place
Erin Vecchia 4022 N 40th Place
Anthony Delagarza 4037 N 40th Place
Katie Baccus & Jason Lupin 4025 N 40th Place
Bertha Ann Howard 4032 N 40th Place
Mike Bivens 4034 N 40th Place
Page 665
September 30, 2021
Page 4
Brad Efune 4014 N 40th Place
Heather & Kyle Greiert 4018 N 40th Place
Barbara Foster 4008 N 40th Place
Page 666
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Vecchia
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 2:05 PM
To: reyrey4109
Cc: Jen Johnson
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] RE: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Erin Vecchia
Skillsoft
480‐334‐3118
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: October 5, 2021 at 9:10:10 AM PDT
To: Erin Vecchia
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Good morning Erin,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Erin Vecchia
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 1:49 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Hi Sophie,
I am sending this email in regards to the petition to rezone the property at 4048 N 40th Pl. I purchased
my home at 4022 N 40th Pl in May of 2021. Based on the extreme housing market I had to pay $50,000
over asking at $1.225 million dollars. I had no idea or knowledge that there was a residential property on
the street, three houses away from my new home, that was trying to be rezoned until I moved in. I
firmly believe that this rezoned residential property will not bring value to our small community, only
hinder it. I have also experienced issues with employees from the Studio MA parking on our street in
front of our homes in the daytime, restaurant parking issues in the evening and general additional traffic
Page1 667
zipping down our cul‐de‐sac from confusion on if it’s a through street. We also hear garbage trucks at
4:30 am from the commercial and apartments to the rear of my home. I am not in support of the home
being rezoned creating additional issues based on limited parking and more employees. This is a small,
quaint street and there are plenty of other commercial spaces, in already designated areas, that could
be used for an expanded office building.
I appreciate the time to listen to our thoughts and concerns.
Thanks,
Erin Reitz Vecchia
4022 N 40th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85018
480‐334‐3118
Page2 668
Racelle Escolar
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:55 PM
To: alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov
Cc: Jen Johnson; Erin Vecchia; Ron Elwardt; Ruth Elwardt; Barb Foster; michael Bivens; Katie Baccus; jason Lupin;
rosanne pennington; Amber Wagers
Subject: Case No. z-43-21-6
Attachments: CommunityLetter_20211003_V5_MR.docx
Alan,
Please let me introduce myself. My name is Matthew Reyhons, resident of 4041 N 40th Place Phoenix, AZ 85018. This
evening we, the members of the community were present for the review of the above mentioned case. We submitted
three letters; one on behalf of the community which was acknowledged by Sofia Mastikhina, and two other members as
well as a request to speak. While Sofia acknowledged the letter sent on behalf of the community we were under the
assumption we would have our two minutes to speak in which, with respect to the committee's time I would present
our points. I feel a response to confirm we wanted to speak would be made clear on her part as the subject matter
expert in the process. I am requesting on behalf of the neighborhood of N 40th Place that we review this case to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee when they next assemble.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
‐Matthew Reyhons
Page1 669
Racelle Escolar
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:55 AM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: RE: Case Z-43-21-6
Hi Matt,
I recommend contacting the Chairman, Mr. Jay Swart, as he is the head of the committee and it may be easier
to coordinate conversations this way. However, the Camelback East VPC will not be able to re-hear the case
unless the Planning Commission votes to remand it back to them. So your best next course of action is to
contact the Planning Commission staff, Racelle Escolar and Gregory Harmon. Please see the contacts below:
Jay Swart, Chair of Camelback East VPC
jayswart@cox.net
Racelle Escolar, Planner III, Planning Commission
racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov
Greg Harmon
greg.harmon@phoenix.gov
Our director, Alan Stephenson, is also aware of the issue, as he reached out to me after receiving your email,
so he will be able to coordinate with hearing bodies to make sure that the community gets a chance to
participate in the process.
The next step now is, like I said, participating in the Planning Commission hearing with your request to remand
the case back to the VPC, if that is your wish.
Thank,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
Thanks for the response. What is the best way to contact the Camelback East Village Planning Committee? While
mistakes happen we as a community feel the process should be reverted due to not having an opportunity to speak.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
Page1 670
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:02 AM Sofia Mastikhina wrote:
Good morning Matt,
This case is scheduled for the November 4, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. The agenda for this meeting
has not been posted yet but, when it is, you will be able to access it here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices. The agenda will have an email address where you
will send your request to speak on the matter.
For the case to be heard by the Camelback East Village Planning Committee again, the Planning Commission
will have to vote on doing so. Thus, you will have to request this from the Commission.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information and, again, my sincere apologies for
this oversight.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Page2 671
Good evening Matt,
I just scrolled down to see your original email and I must give you my sincere apologies. In the rush to get everything
ready for the meeting and sending out all new correspondence to the committee, I overlooked your speaking request. I
am deeply sorry about that, as I would never want to hinder meaningful public participation in our hearing processes.
The next opportunity for public input will be at the Planning Commission hearing. I will send you information on how to
participate in the morning.
In the meantime if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Sofia
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:47:02 PM
To: PDD Camelback East VPC; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Please see attached acknowledgement.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
Page3 672
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog, Anthony Delagarza , Barb Foster
, Brad Efune , dan pennington , Erin
Vecchia, Heather Greiert , jason Lupin
, Jen Johnson , Katie Baccus , Keenan Tighe
, michael Bivens , Ron Elwardt , rosanne
pennington, Ruth Elwardt
Good morning Matthew,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog; Anthony Delagarza ; Barb Foster
; Brad Efune ; dan pennington ; Erin
Vecchia; Heather Greiert ; jason Lupin
; Jen Johnson ; Katie Baccus ; Keenan Tighe
Page4 673
; Matt Reynolds ; michael Bivens ; Ron
Elwardt; rosanne pennington ; Ruth Elwardt
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page5 674
From: jlynjohnson
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 12:53 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Fw: Case No.: Z‐43‐21
This is what I received. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask to talk to whom ever is above her to discuss the multiple
errors made.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Begin forwarded message:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 9:14 AM, Sofia Mastikhina wrote:
Good morning Jen,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: jlynjohnson@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case No.: Z‐43‐21
October 1st, 2021
Page1 675
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of my personal concerns on case
no. Z-43-21. I am the newest resident on the street with my home purchase closing late
July 2021 during a market high. I can tell you I was immediately drawn to my homes
original 1950’s qualities as well as the friendly neighbors found in this community. At the
time of writing an offer and then later contract for my home, the intentions to change
zoning on the residence three lots north of mine were never disclosed. Had this
occurred, I might have reevaluated other options, even in this limited housing inventory
market. As is, my home was shown for one afternoon with limited showings and they
received multiple offers over asking price.
With my home being fairly original and tenant occupied for over a decade, I have a
considerable amount of work and expense in my future. I have concerns about my
property value being negatively impacted if a business is a few doors down from my
front door. My lot already has a lot of vehicle traffic and foot traffic across my back fence
and we have commercial garbage truck pick up at 4:30 each morning not to mention
evening music from food establishments weekend evenings. It does seem that our
neighborhood is at a crossroads with business encroaching from many sides. I strongly
oppose loosing another home on our street or an opportunity to have another family
participate in our small tightknit community.
Sincerely,
Jen Johnson Collier
4026 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page2 676
Racelle Escolar
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:03 AM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: RE: Case Z-43-21-6
Good morning Matt,
This case is scheduled for the November 4, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. The agenda for this meeting
has not been posted yet but, when it is, you will be able to access it here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices. The agenda will have an email address where you
will send your request to speak on the matter.
For the case to be heard by the Camelback East Village Planning Committee again, the Planning Commission
will have to vote on doing so. Thus, you will have to request this from the Commission.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information and, again, my sincere apologies for
this oversight.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Good evening Matt,
I just scrolled down to see your original email and I must give you my sincere apologies. In the rush to get everything
ready for the meeting and sending out all new correspondence to the committee, I overlooked your speaking request. I
am deeply sorry about that, as I would never want to hinder meaningful public participation in our hearing processes.
The next opportunity for public input will be at the Planning Commission hearing. I will send you information on how to
participate in the morning.
In the meantime if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Sofia
Get Outlook for iOS
Page1 677
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:47:02 PM
To: PDD Camelback East VPC; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Please see attached acknowledgement.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog, Anthony Delagarza , Barb Foster
, Brad Efune , dan pennington , Erin Vecchia
, Heather Greiert , jason Lupin , Jen
Johnson, Katie Baccus , Keenan Tighe , michael
Bivens, Ron Elwardt , rosanne pennington
, Ruth Elwardt
Good morning Matthew,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Page2 678
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog; Anthony Delagarza ; Barb Foster
; Brad Efune ; dan pennington ; Erin Vecchia
; Heather Greiert ; jason Lupin ; Jen
Johnson; Katie Baccus ; Keenan Tighe ; Matt
Reynolds; michael Bivens ; Ron Elwardt
; rosanne pennington ; Ruth Elwardt
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page3 679
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Good evening Matt,
I just scrolled down to see your original email and I must give you my sincere apologies. In the rush to get everything
ready for the meeting and sending out all new correspondence to the committee, I overlooked your speaking request. I
am deeply sorry about that, as I would never want to hinder meaningful public participation in our hearing processes.
The next opportunity for public input will be at the Planning Commission hearing. I will send you information on how to
participate in the morning.
In the meantime if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Sofia
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:47:02 PM
To: PDD Camelback East VPC; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Please see attached acknowledgement.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog, Anthony Delagarza , Barb Foster
, Brad Efune , dan pennington , Erin Vecchia
, Heather Greiert , jason Lupin , Jen
Johnson, Katie Baccus , Keenan Tighe , michael
Bivens, Ron Elwardt , rosanne pennington
, Ruth Elwardt
Good morning Matthew,
Page1 680
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog; Anthony Delagarza ; Barb Foster
; Brad Efune ; dan pennington ; Erin Vecchia
; Heather Greiert ; jason Lupin ; Jen
Johnson; Katie Baccus ; Keenan Tighe ; Matt
Reynolds; michael Bivens ; Ron Elwardt
; rosanne pennington ; Ruth Elwardt
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page2 681
RCVD
11/1/2021
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
October 2, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z‐43‐21‐6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia and the City Planning Commission:
We would like to express our concern regarding the rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place. We have lived at
4027 N 40th Place for 30 years. Our neighborhood is a small, clearly defined neighborhood on a cul‐de‐
sac which allows only one entry and exit point. There are currently fourteen residences on the street.
We have enjoyed a close‐knit community over the years. We raised our family here and recently new
young families with children have moved into the neighborhood.
On our street, we have seen eight renovations, additions, remodels or complete rebuilds since 2017.
We as a community have invested a great deal of resources into our properties with the assumption that
our street (including 4048 N. 40th Place) would remain residential. We are not a declining neighborhood.
Six of the houses in our community are valued at over $1,000,000. Our community should not be seen
as a candidate for regentrification. We are a thriving residential community and the property at 4040 N.
40th Place was always well maintained by the previous owner.
In addition, in the last eighteen months, six of our residents purchased their homes without knowledge
that there might be any kind of zoning change imminent.
We are anxious to preserve the community environment that we have worked hard to maintain and
foster. We feel that the expansion of Studio Ma would adversely impact our small neighborhood both in
its community feel and property values.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 682
Southwest Corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road (Ordinance G-6927)
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-43-21-
6 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence District) to R-O (Residential Office - Restricted Commercial
District) to allow a professional office.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 (0.27-acres) and R-5 (0.43-acres)
Proposed Zoning: R-O
Acreage: 0.70-acres
Proposal: Professional office
Owner: Christopher Alt and Christiana Moss
Applicant: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
Representative: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on Oct.
5, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with additional stipulations, by a vote of 7-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed and a petition for a three-
quarter vote was submitted on Nov. 9, 2021 and Nov. 12, 2021.
A three-quarter vote is required.
Location
Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 4048 N. 40th Place and 4035 E. Indian School Road.
Page 596
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 597
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-43-21-6) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) AND R-5 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO
R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.70 acre site located at the southwest
corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road in a portion of Section 30, Township 2
North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed
from 0.27 acres of “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) and 0.43 acres of “R-5”
(Multifamily Residence District) to “R-O” (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial
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”.
Page 598
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped June 25, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
a. That there be a maximum building height of one story and 15 feet.
2. There shall be no vehicular access from 40th Place.
3. The required landscape setback along 40th Place shall include large canopy
shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall
be minimum 4-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch
caliper. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover, shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the southern portion of the site shall be
planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas located within the southern 65 feet of the
site shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade
trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve
25 percent shade at maturity, as approved or modified by Planning and
Development Department.
6. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 599
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
12. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
13. The developer shall work with the neighbors and the Street Transportation
Department to either install no parking signs or permit parking only signs along
40th Place.
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 December,
2021.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 600
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 601
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-43-21-6
WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 2, GARY LYN, ACCORDING TO BOOK 48 OF MAPS, PAGE 28, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Page 602
Page 603
$WWDFKPHQW%
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021
Request From: R1-6 (0.27 acres) and R-5 (0.43 acres)
Request To: R-O (0.70 acres)
Proposed Use Professional office
Location Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian
School Road
Owner Christopher Alt and Christiana Moss
Representative/Applicant Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc.
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
40th Place Local Street 25-foot west half street
Street Map
Classification
Indian School Road Major Arterial 40-foot south half street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Encourage land uses that promote the growth of entrepreneurs or new
businesses in Phoenix in appropriate locations.
The proposed development will allow for the expansion of an existing office use while
remaining consistent with the residential scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Landscape setbacks and buffering vegetation will further help minimize the
impact of the portion of the structure on the adjacent single-family home to the south. By
rezoning the entirety of the site to R-O, the proposal will ensure that future development
and land uses on the site are compatible with the residential neighborhood.
Page 604
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; LOCAL & SMALL
BUSINESS, LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate adaptive reuse of older,
underutilized properties to create mechanisms for new local and small
businesses to operate, thrive and grow.
The conversion of the southern property to an extension of the existing office use
encourages the growth of a local business that is appropriately located along a major
arterial street.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
As stipulated, the development will provide mature shade trees along its 40th Place
frontage, as well as throughout its surface parking lot.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 6.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 7.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 9.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Office, single-family residence R-5, R1-6
North (Across Indian
Restaurant, surface parking lot C-2
School Road)
South Single-family residence R1-6
East (Across 40th
Single-family residences R1-6
Place)
West Restaurant C-2
Page 605
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
R-O (Residential Office)
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed site Plan
Minimum Building Setbacks
Front (East) 20 feet 19 feet (east) – Not met*
Side
(North) 10 feet 9.5 feet (north) – Not met**
(South) 10 feet 10 feet – Met
Rear 25 feet 57 feet (west) – Met
Landscaping Minimum 3 feet wide landscape Met
strip around principal structure
5 feet required along north side 9.5 feet (north) – Met
Lot Coverage 30% 33% - Not met*
Building Height 15 feet, plus 1 foot in height per 1 14.2 feet – Met
foot additional setback to a
maximum height of 25 feet
Parking 1 per 300 square feet net floor 20 spaces – Met
area (20 spaces)
*Site Plan modification or variance required
**Denotes existing condition on the portion of the site that will not be modified during
development.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to
rezone a 0.70-acre
site located on the
southwest corner of
40th Place and
Indian School Road
from 0.27 acres of
R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District)
and 0.43 acres of
R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District)
to R-O (Residential
Office – Restricted
Commercial District)
to allow an office use. Aerial Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 606
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
2. The site has a General
Plan Land Use Map
designation of
Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre. The
same designation exists
on the east, west, and
south of the site. To the
north of the site, across
Indian School Road, a
Commercial General
Plan Land Use Map
designation exists.
The proposal is not General Plan Land Use Map
consistent with the Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre designation. However, as the site is under 10 acres, a General Plan
Amendment is not required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site is currently
zoned R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence
District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence
District). The existing
office building is located
on the northern portion
of the site, which has
the multifamily zoning
but allows professional
office use. The single-
family portion of the
property to the south will
be redeveloped to
expand the footprint of
the office building.
Zoning Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Page 607
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
The residential
neighborhood to the
south of the site is
Zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District). To the
east, cross 40th Place, is a
professional office and more
single-family residences
zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence
District) where adjacent to
Indian School Road.
To the west of the site is a
restaurant zoned C-2
(Intermediate Commercial
District). North of the site,
across Indian School Road,
are a restaurant and a
surface parking lot also zoned
C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial District)
The proposal to rezone the
entirety of the site, including
Current Site Conditions the portion that includes the
existing office building, to R-O
will provide an appropriate transition from the commercial uses present along Indian
School Road to the residential neighborhood on 40th Place.
4. The proposed site plan depicts an existing office building on the northern portion of
the site (labeled “Lot 1”) and the proposed expansion into the new southern parcel
(labeled “Lot 2”). Conditions on Lot 1 are not changed with this proposal, and all
development activity is proposed on the southernmost parcel. The proposal
consists of a building addition to the existing office structure, expanding the building
footprint by 3,293 square feet, new landscaping areas along 40th Place and the
new southern perimeter property line, and an expansion of the surface parking area
on the southwestern portion of the site.
Page 608
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
Proposed Site Plan
Source: Studio Ma
The existing building setbacks along Indian School Road and along 40th Place do
not meet the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and, as the
proposal is to simply extend the existing building, staff is not recommending general
conformance with the site plan. The building expansion will be consistent in scale
and character with the existing office building, with the same building setback along
40th Place being extended south to the new parcel. This setback area will be
planted with similar vegetation as the existing property, which also complies with
staff’s recommendation for robust tree, shrub, and groundcover plantings listed in
Stipulation No. 3. The new portion of the building will also be set back 10 feet from
the southern perimeter property line, where the property is directly adjacent to a
single-family residence. Staff recommends that this area be planted with minimum
2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on center to achieve a vegetative buffer area
between the project and the home to the south. This is addressed in Stipulation No.
4.
Vehicular access will be provided solely from Indian School Road to discourage
visitor circulation and parking on 40th Place. This is also recommended by staff in
Stipulation No. 2. Vehicular circulation is planned to occur in the surface parking
Page 609
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
area on the western portion of the site, where there is an existing parking area on
the northern portion, and where a new parking area will be constructed on the
southern portion. This new parking area is proposed to be constructed of
permeable paving material to aid in stormwater permeation and reduce the urban
heat island effect. To further help provide a thermally comfortable surface area,
staff is recommending that the parking area be shaded to 25 percent with minimum
2-inch caliper trees dispersed through the parking area. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 5 and only applies to the new parking area on the new southern
portion of the site.
Although no signage is currently proposed, a stipulation prohibiting internally lit
signs is recommended to help maintain the residential character of the area. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 6
5. The proposed conceptual building elevations depict a one-story office building with
a modern wood slat design consistent with the current condition of the existing
building (see Current Site Conditions exhibit on Page 5 of this staff report). The
design will be extended south to the new parcel and will be of a compatible scale to
the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood.
Proposed Building Elevations
Source: Studio Ma
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
6. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
Page 610
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. Staff is recommending robust tree plantings along the
southern and east landscape setbacks, as well as dispersed throughout the new
parking area. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Further, the
northern portion of the site where the existing building sits has been previously
landscaped to provide trees, shrubs, and live groundcover.
7. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The development shall provide
accessible pedestrian connectivity to the sidewalk on Indian School Road and
bicycle parking near the building entrance, per Stipulation Nos. 7 and 8.
8. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
The proposal incorporates requirements for bicycle parking that follows standards
set forth in the Walkable Urban Code, which is the city’s form-based zoning code
intended to enhance the pedestrian realm and encourage multi-modal
transportation. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
9. 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
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance expand its recycling and other waste
diversion programs. The development will continue to utilize regular trash and
recycling collection.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
10. At the time this staff report was written, staff received one inquiry regarding
changing the rezoning request and one letter in opposition citing concerns with
compatibility and overflow parking in the neighborhood.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
11. The Public Transit Department has requested that the developer provide clearly
defined, accessible pathways that connect all building entrances and exits, and
public sidewalks, and, where pedestrian paths cross drive aisles, that they be
constructed of materials that visually contrast with parking and drive aisle surfaces.
Page 611
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9.
12. The Street Transportation Department has required that all streets be constructed
with all required improvements and comply with current ADA standards. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
OTHER
13. 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. 11.
14. 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 will provide an appropriate transition between a major arterial street
and an established single-family neighborhood.
2. The proposal will provide an opportunity for an existing small business located on a
major arterial street to expand in the Camelback East area and serve the
surrounding neighborhood.
3. The proposal is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding
neighborhood and will provide an appropriate land use transition from the
commercial uses along Indian School Road
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
June 25, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. That there be a maximum building height of one story and 15 feet.
2. There shall be no vehicular access from 40th Place.
Page 612
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
3. The required landscape setback along 40th Place shall include large canopy shade
trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be minimum 4-inch
caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch caliper. Five, five-gallon
shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall provide minimum 75
percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the southern portion of the site shall be
planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas located within the southern 65 feet of the site
shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent
shade at maturity, as approved or modified by Planning and Development
Department.
6. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of
Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 613
Staff Report: Z-43-21-6
September 29, 2021
Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
September 16, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial
Site plan date stamped June 25, 2021 (1 page)
Elevations date stamped June 25, 2021 (2 pages)
Community correspondence (3 pages)
Page 614
C-2 C-2 *
Z-SP-3-81 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
40TH ST
40TH PL
R-5
R-4 R1-6
R-3A*
I
Miles
Z-43-21 NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.02 0.01 0 0.02
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 THOMAS RD
SR 51
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
40TH ST
WASHINGTON ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
FROM:
R-5 ( 0.43 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-43-21
DATE:
9/8/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.27 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.70 Acres QS 16-37 H-10 TO: R-O ( 0.70 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-5, R1-6 18, 1 22, 2
R-O 1/development N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-43-21.mxd
Page 615
C-2 C-2 *
Z-SP-3-81 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
40TH ST
40TH PL
R-5
R-4 R1-6
R-3A*
I
Miles
Z-43-21 NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.02 0.01 0 0.02
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 THOMAS RD
SR 51
24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD
32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
40TH ST
WASHINGTON ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc
FROM:
R-5 ( 0.43 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-43-21
DATE:
9/8/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.27 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.70 Acres QS 16-37 H-10 TO: R-O ( 0.70 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-5, R1-6 18, 1 22, 2
R-O 1/development N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-43-21.mxd
Page 616
' / Ƃ
[]ëÊè]²Ƃ Ƃ $ ƂļÍ Ƃ
IƂƂ ƂƂ 4½ƂoƂ%Ƃ
"Ƃ+ƂƂ Ƃ 3#_! #!Ƃ
ƂƂ ƂƂ Ƃ
ťŸ Ƃ ŵܧƂ Ƃ
)O-Ƃ C $ C Ƃ ŚƂ$Ƃ Ƃ C $ Ƃ, Ƃ
IƂƂ ƂƂ 4 ƂoƂ%Ƃ
^Ƃ%ƂƂ
$Ƃ+ƂƂ Ƃ ś#_!@#!Ƃ ŭƂ!Ƃ
9 Ƃ
9 0Ƃ B )Ƃ $ĝ9 Ƃ, Ƃ Ƃ
36 O c Ƃ ¢Ƃ
ƂƂ ƂƂ Ƃ34 ƂoƂ Ƃ ƂƂ ƂƂ Ƃ
$Ƃ+Ƃ ƂƂ g6_* !#!Ƃ · gƂ
®=¨Ƃ 4 Ƃ 3zƂ Ƃ
/Ƃ
99 Ƃ ŗ@ Ƃ Ƃ Ƃĺ Ƃ
ƂƂ ƂgƂ HƂƂ Ƃ¢Ƃ
4 ƂĂƂ Ƃ 4Ƃ w¦ŢƂ Ƃ
vNNvNNvNNƂ[äà][ž[æſ¿
ğ $Ƃ9 $ Ƃ § Ƃ Ƃş Ƃ =^Ƃţ61ƂƂ =lƂ C $ C Ƃ '$ Ƃ
]Ó¯Ƃ eUaıŀƂKaƂ ' !D@ ź@#Ƃ C $ Ƃ, Ƃ
Ƃ4 Ƃ ƂƂ'Ƃ-ƂŹƂ3 Ƃ IƂƂ Ƃ¡Ƃ
ƂX Ė@Ƃ ŎŕƂ2ŷ 3ƂƂ)- #Ƃ 4 Ƃ w¦Ƃ+ Ƃ
6*ƂhƂ¤3ƂƂ!ƂŨ #Ƃ
'0 'Ƃ9 " Ƃ ƂƂƂ õƂ Ƃ IF I= Ƃ
)Ƃ JƂ01Ƃ)1JƂx ƂƂ2Ƃ ƂEƂ, Ƃ
Ƃ ŦxƂ Ƃ, Ƃ *1 Ƃ zöƂ
¥ƂD 3ƂƂƂůƂ!Ƃ Ƃ
Ƃ6Ƃ ÷Ƃ /Ƃ Ƃ ƂƂ Ƃ Ƃ
Ƃ6Ƃ ƂƂ3Ƃ Ƃ Ƃ ùƂƂ
*w1ƂƂƂ ƂƂƂƂ Ƃ
Ƃ ƂƂ Ƃ± Ö*6 O OƂ
ãG \Ƃ aƂėKĤÿƂĒUUƂ eUþƂ ƂD øƂƂOƂƂ Ƃ Ƃ D3 ÌƂ
`KR>?Â7?ƀRƂ `K7>?Q7?QG7?Ƃ
eQ\Ƃ ƂƂ#ƂnƂ Ƃ HF H=Ƃ
ĊŞĴďƂÕÉspľƂĩpsċČēĘsāƂ 'ƂJƂ01Ƃ'1JƂx ƂƂ2Ƃ ƂEƂ,»Ƃ
ĥčĎąƂĄŁĠīTqƂĹƂĮĢĀTƂ Ƃ ƂũƂ Ƃ,ŪƂ *1 Ƃ 3z#Ƃ
őIJĈTqƂłĦTęTqżƂ pŽŻƂ
a7>7>ËGGƂ Ń 0Ƃ )- nƂ =Ƃ
>¸\\ ŐƂ 'Ƃ-nƂ F+Ƃ54 <Ƃ =Ƃ5<Ƃ
Ƃ $Ƃ 0Ƃ
¾Ƃ šƂ
)-%Ƃ + Ƃ5l I(<Ƃ ( (E5#% +<Ƃ
ĚƂó«Ƃ ×ƂêçØƂěĬƂðüĐĜƂ ñáåŌŒÞÚņűŘƂ
$cƂ Ƃ ( Ƃ5l^(<Ƃ J (Ƃ5# <Ƃ
`KR>?Q7?Á7GìƂ
È>Ƃ 2t )9 0Ƃĭt ƂB " 0Ƃ
4 Ƃ5Ƃ! }Ƃ )- Ƃ 2*@@ %Ƃ řƂ
XƂ '-Ƃ 2* Ƃ
2!Ƃ ( Ƃ
B3ŝÙB Ƃ ( Ƃ
"54* 2!}Ƃ + Ƃ
' $Ƃ u &0Ƃ ćƂ>G>RƂĻĆĕUƂģýƂ
ghD5 F<Ƃ iƂ
Page 617
" Ƃ*!6Ƃ ƂƂ
4 Ƃ '- Ƃ ¼+ EōƂ ( ( Ƃ (iƂ *!Ƃ ƂŰ3ƂƂ
ŮƂ )-Ƃ +(EAƂ ( H îÛƂ ¬Ƃ £! O X1 Ƃ
$cƂ +J% EAƂ Î (EƂ iƂ Ƃ ŧ 6 ƂĽƂƂ
£ ƂƂ!!Ƃh Ƃ
B' Ƃ Ƃ ĸ Ƃ 6*1 yƂ
0Ƃ2* Ƃ ¡Ƃ5¥*ƂD!<Ƃ + Ƃ @ Ŋ*@6Ƃ
đūŲųƂijŖŋƂăƂ â ïôƂ 1 ƂŶƂ#Ƃ
$ B Ƃ #Ƃ%(^Ƃ
2t )9 0ƂC 0C$Ƃ
`K7>?Q7?ÏG7íƂ '-%Ƃ Ŕʼn Ƃ5Ƃh¤<Ƃ 1A {=YƂ
4 ƂƂDƂ! Ƃ 1A {=YƂ
eRƁƂ
XƂ 1AµAF jFªƂ
) "Ƃ )Ƃ Ƃ
u œƂ
* Ƃ Ƃ$Ƃ _Ƃ ƂƂƂ Ƃ5 Eŏ <Ƃ
¶( Ƃ Ƃ + Ƃ
+ ƂAƂ Ƃ úƂƂƂ* Ƃ
Xy Ƃ (Ƃ ƂŴƂ ƂňDƂƂ ûƂƂƂƂ
8. b" ;Ƃ
Y%|FYƂ
%Ƃ M ĵ :Ƃ)&d8.&Ƃ &Ƃ
Ƃ /Ƃr&d8.&Ƃ³Ƃ 8 2rƂ : 8ƂĞƂ Ƃm## #Ƃ
Ƃ /Ƃ. Ƃ
ÔƂ M L :Ƃ"İĔ´Ƃ ..' :Ƃ V .Ƃ";Ƃ ,& Ƃ #Ƃ ,'2 Ƃ Ƃ
Š
éƂ "/&cÐÑS/WƂ Ƃ |Ƃ jƂ jƂ
mƂ ';.&Ķ8Ƃr.L b.&'Ƃ V .Ƃ 8Ƃ"įdB; , Ƃ
Ƃ Ƃ
HƂ M L :Ƃf" ' LWƂ&,"ƂL;Ƃ ,& Ƃ
Ƃ % $' &'' '' '
òƂ M " :Ƃ.f 2Ƃ.fLƂ ħƂ 8/ )SƂ";Ƃ ,&bƂ ń 0Ƃ
%Ƃ M ķ :Ƃ8 V/ WƂ ĉƂ Sb:Ƃ &Ƃ ;Ƃ , ¹Ƃ Ƃ AŤyƂ
'
ƂŬ6ƂƂ %Z+Ƃ
%%Ƃ /Ƃ8 V/WƂ 8ƂĪ S :Ƃ &Ƃ u - I= Ƃ
%ßƂ );.&Ƃ:fĿƂ/ Ƃ&dĨƂ;/ Ƃ;ġ#Ƃ/Ƃ S :Ƃ Ƃ
9VƂ-Ƃ HƂ
! '!' "'% !' ' ' kkkÝÇP P ~
PÅPÀ©P~ÆZƂ"Ŝ , Ƃ 9Ƃ
%Ƃ
B.Ƃ "Ƃ ; "WƂ) ºƂm°Ƃ, ZƂ
% #'# '#' '
-Ƃ +HƂ
Ņ 0Ƃ &-ƂÃ Ƃ
Ä% Ƃ
!ŇZƂ
/Ƃ" ÒM "Ƃ
23P/O=NR=LI
7=I=P:329O,23
! /LI/ PS3GZ,DE
$"%3=vgocvPdnyyqOg
0 LM3IP/O33I=I9
!,-*.0, ywc 0
OLL7=I93293G3R,D,IJP:33TG3R,D7E,P:=I9 '!!% ")
,IL2=`32
& M,=IR323=7PZPGLLR:RLZ3F327=I=P: .3^LI2 zidvcui
' ZLLJMLPSZ>/D3,OP6 S^N ,2#$)
Z=I2LZZ?,IL2=`32EVG=IVG8 .3^LI2
'('0) / +0 73I/3,SMOLM3OS^F=I3 'G=I cgg
2LLO .3^LI2 $"%3=wgocwPdmyyqOg
OLL7 $$) I $n Nrcdi
3\=PS=I9PC^D@9:SP .3^LI2 Nnyiwo ,|pywc)%)
0!# ! #% $0& 0
")(3 /yyqogliPi
Nnyiwo,|oywc)%)
/;O=PRLN;3O,DR
/;O=PR=,I,GLPP
")(3/yyqogliP~ii
Nnyiwo ,|oywc)%)
A
3]BPR=I9.PD bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbsb
)*
)
1 QUW0
Sno gyduiwo cw
ov |uivyj ipdicwg
ncqq ucovni zzi|yj
ni,moid [ny ncqq
NOLN3OR^D=I3 !%.PD covcqqdyuuywqc
cy|cwgyni{|i i|if
|tln owhgovlni
dyz|olny
)*
O3X=P=LIk
x
0 0 ) 0
)+
_LI=I9
znc i}i
dyzzidwy 0
C=X,(! gci
P24Y(!!"
" ""0 0 0
O5aLI=I9 /,P5 0 ucz|eidvy
?@^;]L\`LZX³
!³ DMXM^I@?³G]5?@³
$³ ;ZX;³^a@V³i5RR³
(³ Z\@X³^;]@@XLXG³
+(,³@³L³^³]³
+³ ]ZZDLXG³@?G@³V@`5R³5X?³^I@@`³V@b5R³DR5^ILXG ³ \ ª ³5¥"²³1, 1³
5XZ?Lo@?³ -$³$, ³ (1³
,³ \5LX`@?³@MD^³i³^VZZ`I³ `Zi@S@?³ELXL^I ³8@mZX?³
iZZ? \Z^`i;U^@5] ³`m\³ ¤³ ³
/³ iLX?Zi³5XZ?LpB?³5SeVLXeV³D]5V@ ³8@mZX?³ 5 ? *+1³
[:³ D@X;@³5a³\]Z\@]am³RLX@ ³ VLX³
2³ ?ZZ] ³8@mZX?³ ££³
' +(,³@³L³^³]³
}|}|}|}|}|³~ ) ³ ³ @lM^aLXG³^QmRLGIa^ ³8@mZX?³ ++1 X +¤ \ ³
]ZZF³ \ ³7±³1, 1³
+(,³\]Z\@]cL@^³f<³
(1 .³@³< ³^¤ ¤³
\ ®³5±³1, 1³
*&+$,-#.%'/01
2 "3
\ ® ³5±³1, 1³
(
) !44 r³rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrstu v xy@kL³ z^`y LXyHy9{¢³
rrrrw x $ \]Z\@]dm³TOX@³
13 ³
XZa@4³CkL^aLXH³9eLR?LXH³@R@h5aLZX³aZ³]@V5LX³
|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|³r¯ ) #%³
]ZZD³
³ >³% % ³_cg=KY³W6³
Page 619
a£³¨ ¦³£³³
£¤¨ ¤³³£ ¡ ³³
N³ £ ¤ ¤°³
rrrrrrrrrrr³\]Z\@] `m³TLX@Pr³r³ 7¤ ¦ ³j³£³
¤³ ³¬ ³
£¦¤©¤°¤ £ « ³
¤£ ¨¦ ³
°¤³§³
13 ³
]@hL^LZX³
³ +³ -³
nZXLXH³
£«³
³ &&!-&(³
QLh5 0 $³ ¤ ³
^?Ah³³ .$$(³
\5\\³$ (,-.³ $!*,³
]BqZXLXH³<7^B³$ ³ £ ¤ ³
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Crystal DeVelis
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 11:12 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Zoning case Z-43-21, 4048 North 40th Place
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
The above case has come to my attention as a nearby interested neighbor.
I fail to understand why the applicant is seeking an R5 designation. Is it just to match the existing
property? This is to be an office expansion and while I believe the applicant's motives are good, zoning changes
are forever and this would leave the property vulnerable to future multifamily development within a single-
family neighborhood. Would it be any more difficult or costly for the applicants to have both properties zoned
R-O? That would allow their expansion but not jeopardize the neighborhood should ownership change.
Thank you for reading.
-- Crystal DeVelis
4351 E. Whitton Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 620
Reference-
Case No.: Z-43-21
Address: 4048 North 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
August 25, 2021
Attn: Sofia Mastikhina
We are writing to you to share our concerns with case number Z-43-21. As homeowners who live
directly east of proposed expansion we are opposed to having additional commercial parcels infiltrate
our neighborhood. After attending the August 12th, 2021 neighborhood meeting we are following up
accordingly. Below are a series of our concerns.
x The proposed plan calls for a community garden. Due to the area we feel this has safety
concerns and will attract nomadic citizens. Recently we had package theft in the middle of a
weekend day. We feel that a community garden would increase foot traffic and lead to
additional theft, possible property damage and decrease the feel of a quiet neighborhood
located in a cul-de-sac. Please reference Complaint No.: 100483610 & Incident No.:
202100001160432 with the City Prosecutor’s Office.
x The proposed plan is inconsistent with other streets/communities in the area in which most
have one parcel of commercial zoning whereas this would create two on the west side & only
one of the east side. If allowed to rezone, we feel it would not stop there as opportunities to
continue to infiltrate the neighborhood would be allowed diminishing the community.
x The proposed plan is removing a potential new home buyer or rental home. As housing
affordability & rental affordability continues to rise we feel that keeping the residence at 4048
40th place is best for the citizens in our community as potential future citizens.
x The parking proposal calls for seven addition spots for a total of 20, 13 of which are existing.
During the meeting on August 12th Studio MA ownership & team members stated that they are
looking to expand 12-13 employees in the future adding to their current of 12 employees which
does not require enough parking spots for each team member. One of these parking spots is
designated handicap. The result would be parking on the street which creates issues for
services, safety issues for children in the area and contributes to the local restaurant overflow
parking that invades our neighborhood most evenings.
In closing we strongly disagree with the rezoning in our neighborhood and would like to understand
what steps to ensure our voice is heard based on the above concerns.
Page 621
Amber Skoog & Matthew Reyhons
Residents of 4041 North 40th Place
Page 622
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-43-21-6
Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request From R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-5
(Multifamily Residence District)
Request To R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
Proposed Use Professional office
Location Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including the location,
current and surrounding zoning and land uses, General Plan Land Use Map
designations, and proposal. She explained that the applicant is requesting to expand an
existing office use onto a parcel immediately to the south of the existing building. The
original request was to rezone the additional parcel to R-5 (Multifamily Residence
District) to be compatible with the current zoning on the existing property. However,
after working with staff and the community, the applicant amended their request to
include both the existing and the new parcels and requested to rezone both to R-O
(Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District), which accommodates their office
use while ensuring that no high-density multifamily development is permitted on the
properties. Mastikhina then presented the proposed site plan and elevations, the staff
recommendation for approval, and recommended stipulations.
Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, stated that the existing property is
owned by his client, Studio Ma, which a local architecture firm that has been operating
for over 20 years. He presented a rendering of what the building expansion will look like
in relation to adjacent homes, noting the compatibility of the building height and the
enhanced modern architecture. He explained that his clients love the neighborhood and
wish to expand their growing business at this location instead of finding other another
office space elsewhere in the city. He outlined some of the key elements of the
proposal, which include green building design, no vehicular access on 40th Place, and
beautiful architectural design. He also noted the increased setback along the southern
property line, where the property will abut a single-family home. The current setback is
four feet, and the redevelopment will increase it to over 12 feet. He then explained that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 623
the request at hand was modified to downzone the existing property to a less intense
zoning designation in response to community concerns regarding the potential for future
multifamily development per the R-5 district. He then outlined the neighborhood
outreach conducted for this request, which included the applicants knocking on
neighbors’ doors to discuss the case, as well as a total of three neighborhood meetings.
MOTION
Barry Paceley made a motion to approve the request per the staff recommendation.
Daniel Sharaby seconded the motion.
VOTE
11-0: Motion passes with committee members Swart, Abbott, Bair, Bayless, Thraen,
Eichelkraut, Garcia, Miller, Paceley, Sharaby, and Tribken in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 624
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2021
ITEM NO: 19
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-43-21-6
Location: Southwest corner of 40th Place and Indian School Road
From: R1-6 and R-5
To: R-O
Acreage: 0.70
Proposal: Professional Office
Applicant: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc.
Owner: Christopher Alt and Christiana Moss
Representative: Christopher Alt, Studio Ma, Inc.
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 10/5/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee, with additional stipulations.
Motion Discussion: There was discussion about adding a stipulation to require “no parking” or
“permit parking only” signs along 40th Place.
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-43-21-6, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation with the additional stipulations as
read into the record.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Gorraiz and Howard
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal will provide an appropriate transition between a major arterial street and
an established single-family neighborhood.
2. The proposal will provide an opportunity for an existing small business located on a
major arterial street to expand in the Camelback East area and serve the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. The proposal is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood
and will provide an appropriate land use transition from the commercial uses along
Indian School Road.
Page 625
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
June 25, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. That there be a maximum building height of one story and 15 feet.
2. There shall be no vehicular access from 40th Place.
3. The required landscape setback along 40th Place shall include large canopy shade
trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be minimum 4-inch
caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch caliper. Five, five-gallon
shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall provide minimum 75
percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The required landscape setback along the southern portion of the site shall be planted
with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas located within the southern 65 feet of the site
shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees.
Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent
shade at maturity, as approved or modified by Planning and Development Department.
6. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near building entrances and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred
Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative
pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually
contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
11. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 626
12. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION
FILE FOR RECORD.
13. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO EITHER INSTALL NO PARKING SIGNS OR
PERMIT PARKING ONLY SIGNS ALONG 40TH PLACE.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 627
Attachment E
171-26-015171-26-016171-26-017171-26-018171-26-019 171-26-020 171-26-021 171-26-022
171-26-058
170-32-136
171-26-057
171-26-059
170-32-090 170-32-089
171-26-061G
171-26-062A
171-26-060
171-26-064D
171-26-067B 171-26-067A
170-32-100B
171-26-064C
171-26-062B 171-26-066B
171-26-061B
171-26-065B 171-26-065A
IND IAN SC HO OL RD
127-18-100C
127-18-100D
127-17-001
40TH ST
127-17-017
127-17-103
127-17-002
127-17-016
127-17-108
127-17-107 127-17-003
127-17-015
40TH PL
127-18-100C
127-17-004
127-17-014
127-17-106D
127-17-104A
127-17-005
127-17-102F
127-17-013
127-17-106C 127-17-007B
127-17-012
127-17-007C
127-18-102B 127-17-106B
Legend
127-17-008
127-17-111 127-17-113
127-17-011A
127-17-112
Zoning Petition Area 127-17-114
127-17-119
Proposed Amendment Area 127-17-009
127-17-115 127-17-117 # of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 6/17 = 35%
127-17-089
127-17-116
127-18-115
Lots/Tracts/Condos 127-17-118 % Area = 0.81ac./3.93ac. = 21%
Signed Petition
127-17-078 127-17-080
127-17-082
3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
127-17-083 127-17-084 127-17-086127-17-087127-17-088
127-17-079 127-17-081 127-17-085
Petition Verification Map
I 0 45 90 Feet
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 11/15/2021
Page 628
for Z-43-21-6
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: 12/1/2021
APPLICATION NO/ Z-43-21-6 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southwest corner of opposition x applicant
40th Place and
Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85013
PC 11/4/2021 4026 North 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC
HEARING CC 12/1/2021 Jennifer Johnson Collier
(480) 216-4779
jlynjohnson@aol.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Community concerns have not been addresses fairly or ethically.
“No parking” signs are not a viable solution.
See attachment for details.
RECEIVED BY: Kim Steadman RECEIVED ON: 11/9/2021
Alan Stephenson Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek Samantha Keating
Tricia Gomes Paul M. Li
Racelle Escolar Village Planner: Sofia Mastikhina
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Page 629
Page 630
Page 631
Page 632
Page 633
Page 634
Page 635
Page 636
Page 637
Page 638
Page 639
Page 640
$WWDFKPHQW)
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
,]DvlCr¦<]I¦
,_¦vT¦7]vQp_¦7fHr_pZ¦,vnla`vp¦
¦? ¦?B]`pZp¦<Q¦.ivv|¦
7]vQr_+¦ $! ¦
:R&¦ =xxw¦Uw}¦:R¤wqcq[¦:R{R¦ )xxkN@wq¦3w '¦¥ ¦
%¦3 ¦ ^¦8g¦8^wRqc ¦)wqA¦%"%¦
,]DvmG¦<]I¦GP¦7jZ¦,vo`vpQ|(¦
0¦yyv|¦Q¦|Q£vp_pZ¦|QzQ¦v¦Bffv¦Q¦y|vyQ|¦fvOBQP¦B¦ $¦4¦ ]¦7i¦7]vQpa¦*|`£vrB¦
$!$¦v¦MQ¦|Q£vpQP¦Xvl¦;h #¦v¦; ¦ >]Q¦*yyi`OG¦]C¦QyfB`pQP¦Q`|¦|Q£vp`pZ¦|QzQ¦ap¦\QB¦PQB`f¦
GP¦a¦a¦l¢¦pPQ|GPdZ¦B¦Q`|¦ |Q£vpapZ¦|QzQ¦b¦pQOQL¦ar¦v|PQ|¦v¦Bffv¦]Qa|¦F|QBP¢¦QapZ¦
M_fP_rZ¦ v¦ Q¡GP¦ 1¦ l¢¦ vyap`vp¦ Byy|vE¦ vV¦Q`|¦ |Q£vupZ¦ |QzQ¦ _fh¦ rv¦ pQZBQf¢¦ alyBO¦ Q¦
vPbpZ¦JQB¦M¦aii¦_rQBP¦Eiv¦B¦QgOvlQP¦MapQ¦v¦Q¡GP¦Qe¦Wv|bp ¦
2¦]v¦/¦Yff¢¦yyv¦]Q¦*yyiaOCp¦£vp`pZ¦|QzQ¦MQOBQ¦]Q¦|QzQ¦`ff¦rQ`Q|¦]K¦rv|¦
rQZBQi¢¦`lyBO¦]Q¦vpParZ¦JQB¦*OOv|P`pZi¢¦0¦Ml_¦_¦fQ|¦v¦S|Q¦l¢¦yyv|¦
9vyQ
¦6tQ~¦5ClQ¦sp¦
-BQ¦
Page 641
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
6$9MdI?&h!6$Gh
7\hI/h 6I-B7eh <$BB9@4hI??7RR8I@h
h#h#$R69@4SI@h![--Sh=IIMh
6I-D;eh h
( % "$("(' (!%#$( $ ( ( (
(( $( ( &(" ' ( (
6$9NcI?$Ah!6'h&+h <$H4hI??:RR8I@-MRh
hR]JJINShS6-hM-gIC8C5hM-L]-RShSIh$<=IchV6-hJMIJ-MSfh=I*$S-+h$Sh h h S6h <h 6I.9ehM9gI@$h
hSIh)-hM-gI@-+h2I?hSIh "6-hJJ=9*&Sh6$Rh-eJ=$9C-+hW6-7MhM-gIB8@4hM-L]-RSh7@h4M-$Sh+-S%9<h
$@+h9Sh8Rh?fh]@+-MRS&+8C4h Y$Sh Y-7MhM-gI@9@4hM-L]-RSh8Rh@-*-RR(fh7ChIM+-MhSIh$=
@hR6INUhh3<
!9C*-M-
NIJ-Qh c@-Mh $?-hE@Xh
$T-h
Page 642
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
.#/
I! I !#=./6-?86I >;((>I7&I 288;I
.8(6/FI"I I
& " !& &% & # !& ! & &&
&&!&& $& % & &
.#/
I=A998;>I>.(I;(H86/6-I;(:A(=>I>8I#238DI>.(I 9;89(<>GI28%#>('I#>III>.I 3 I .8(6/FI;/H86#I
I>8I$(I;(H86('I+85I 4I>8I I .(I992/%#6>I.#=I(F92#/6('I>.(/;I;(H86/6-I;(:B(=>I/6I-;(#>I'(>#/2I
#6'I/>I/=I5GI A6'(;=?#6'/6-I >.#>I>.(/;I;(H86/6-I;(:A(=>I/=I6(%(==#;GI/6I8;'(;I>8I#228DI>.(/;I#2;(#'GI(F/=>/6-I
$A/2'/6-I >8I (F9#6' I 6I 5GI 89/6/86I #99;8C#2I 8)I >.(/;I ;(H86/6-I ;(:A(=>I D/22I 68>I 6(-#>/C(2GI /59#%>I >.(I
=A;;8A6'/6-I#;(#I$A>ID/22I/6=>(#'I#228EI#ID(2%85('I$A=/6(==I>8I(F9#6'I>.(/;I*8>9;/6> I
6I=.8<@I I,32GI =A998;>I>.(I992/%#6>=I;(H86/6-I;(:A(=>I$(%#A=(I>.(I;(:A(=>ID/22I6(/>.(;I.#;5I68;I
6(-#>/C(2GI/59#%>I>.(I=A;;8A6'/6-I#;(# I%%8;'/6-2GII=A$5/>I>./=I2(?>(;I>8I(F9;(==I5GI=A998;> I
/6%(;(2GI
Page 643
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
!C1F]SM1Nw,C1NJw
"E_lwS;w)CS8NFkw)L2NNFN@w"SMME^^ESNw
w/ w/1^CENA`SNw,_W88_wtbw#KSSWw
)CS8NEkw 0w w
* '""!$&*!$*)! *#'%& "" & ! *!* *
** &* *! (*$ )! * *
"C1IWgSM1Nw,C1NJw1N7w)K1NNFN@w"SMMG^^GSN8W^ w
$w^cTTSZ`w_C8wW8uSNFN@wW9Vc9^`w`Sw1KLShw_D8wTWST8W`mwKS51`87w1`w w& w`Cw)K w)CS8NFkw WEuSN1w
w_Sw49wW9uSN97w>SMw+K w`Sw+ 'w .D9w TTKE51N`wC1^w9kTL1FN87w`D8EWwW9uSNEN@wW:Vc9^_wENw@W81_w78_1ELw
1N7wG`wE^wMnwcN79W^`1R7EN@w`K1_w`C8GWwW8uSNGN@w W8Vc8^`wG^wN859^^1WowENwSW79Ww`Sw1LLSgw`C8FWw1KW817nw8kF^`GN@w
4cEL7GN@w `Sw 8kT1N7w $Nw MpwSTGNGSNw 1TTWSe2Kw S
$Nw^CSW_ w%w?LKpw^cTTSW`w_C9w TTLE51N`^wW8uSNEN@wW9Vc9^`w4851c^8w`C9wW9Vc8^`wgGKKwN8F`C8WwC1WMwNSWw
N8@1`Ff8Kqw EMT15`w`C9w^cWWScN7GN@w1W81w 55SW7EN@Km w$w^c4ME`w`DF^wK8`_9Ww`Sw9kTW9^^wMrw^cTTSW` w
,FN59W8Ks w
*OvU6\Xw(P6Yw-HBQ3ad[w
Page 644
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ
Page 645
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ
November2,2021
CityofPhoenixPlanningandDevelopmentDepartment,
ZoningSection
200WestWashingtonStreet,2ndFloor
Phoenix,Arizona85003
Reference:ZͲ43Ͳ21Ͳ6
DearmembersoftheZoningBoard,
IsupporttherezoningrequestsubmittedforStudioMa.Iliveclosetothebuildingandfeelthat
thearchitecturaldesign,quality,andsustainabilitywouldonlyfurtherenhancetheoverall
characteroftheneighborhoodandgeneralareaasawhole.
ThisenvironmentaldesignandplanningfirmhaspromisedtobelowͲintensityuseandthatall
visitingtrafficwouldberestrictedtoIndianSchool.Ibelievetheproposeddesignissuitable,
wellͲconcealedfrompublicviewbothfromthegroundsandfromoutsidethegroundsand
providesneededamenitiesforvisitors.
IurgetheZoningBoardtoapprovetheproposedrezoningtoallowfortheexpansionofStudio
Ma.
DavidSpetzler
NeighborhoodResident
Page 646
3$7%
Page 647
Attachment G
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
September 30, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21-6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of our neighborhood’s feedback about case no. Z-
43-21-6. During a recent neighborhood meeting we reviewed all options as well as well as discussing the
benefits and concerns each member had and we came to a unanimous consensus that we are opposed
to the rezoning of the 4048 North 40th Place property. Discussion points we feel strongly about justifying
our reasoning are as follows:
• Parking – Studio MA’s proposed project plan does not include enough parking. Per Studio Ma’s
projected employee growth, future parking spots and strategy for them to encourage employee
to leverage public transportation, walk to work & or ride bicycles to work is not a concrete
option to combat the parking shortage. We believe this would cause an overflow of parking on
our street of both employees as well as customer/clients of Studio Ma. With the overflow of
parking this will increase the traffic in our neighborhood. The variables of a bus stop, business
traffic on an already high traffic Indian School Road we believe this will create accessibility
exiting our neighborhood as well as a safety issue for all.
• Neighborhood – North 40th Place is a rare cul-de-sac in the area that is composed of long-time &
new homeowners that want to keep it a neighborhood. We feel that by having another lot of
our small neighborhood being zoned as commercial it will continue to happen diminishing our
neighborhood. Currently, our street consists of thirteen homes of the original fifteen lots. The
remaining two lots side to Indian School Road and are business occupied. By allowing
commercial zoning further into our neighborhood it takes away from being a desired location to
live, raise a family. In addition, it provides for an avenue of the same rezoning to happen and
take away further homes and neighbors from our community.
• Benefit – we do not see how this project benefits our neighborhood or members in anyway,
rather it inhibits our ability to cultivate the neighborhood atmosphere.
• Property Value – members of the neighborhood, especially those closest to 4048 N 40th Place,
have concerns of the adverse impact the commercial space will have on our home values.
Page 648
September 30, 2021
Page 2
Estimates from 5-10% reduction have been given to us by real estate professionals with the
knowledge and experience of how situations such as this has impacted other communities.
• Home Prices & Availability – home prices have steadily increased over the last 18-24 months
making it difficult for some to purchase a home. In addition, new home starts in the Phoenix
Metro outpace the national average while vacant home inventory is at an all-time low of 1.22*.
Active listings in the Phoenix Metro is 66% less than 18 months ago. We feel that removing a
residence is not the correct thing to do given market conditions.
*Vacant Home Inventory Index is a number, measured in months, until zero new homes would be
available for purchase. Source: NAHB
Housing Price Trend –
Housing Units by Building Permits Trend –
Page 649
September 30, 2021
Page 3
Active Resale Listings Trend
In summary, we as a neighborhood, based on the above reason are opposed to the rezoning of 4048 N
40th Place. If you have any questions about the above statements, please let us know. Thank you for
your time, consideration as well as your understanding.
Sincerely,
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Neighborhood Members: Address:
Jen Johnson Collier 4026 N. 40th Place
Matthew Reyhons & Amber Skoog 4041 N. 40th Place
Ron & Ruth Elwardt 4027 N 40th Place
Erin Vecchia 4022 N 40th Place
Anthony Delagarza 4037 N 40th Place
Katie Baccus & Jason Lupin 4025 N 40th Place
Bertha Ann Howard 4032 N 40th Place
Mike Bivens 4034 N 40th Place
Page 650
September 30, 2021
Page 4
Brad Efune 4014 N 40th Place
Heather & Kyle Greiert 4018 N 40th Place
Barbara Foster 4008 N 40th Place
Page 651
October 1st, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of my personal concerns on case no. Z-43-
21. I am the newest resident on the street with my home purchase closing late July 2021 during a
market high. I can tell you I was immediately drawn to my homes original 1950’s qualities as
well as the friendly neighbors found in this community. At the time of writing an offer and then
later contract for my home, the intentions to change zoning on the residence three lots north of
mine were never disclosed. Had this occurred, I might have reevaluated other options, even in
this limited housing inventory market.
With my home being fairly original and tenant occupied for over a decade, I have a considerable
amount of work and expense in my future. I have concerns about my property value being
negatively impacted if a business is a few doors down from my front door. My lot already has a
lot of vehicle traffic and foot traffic across my back fence and we have commercial garbage truck
pick up at 4:30 each morning not to mention evening music from food establishments weekend
evenings. It does seem that our neighborhood is at a crossroads with business encroaching from
many sides. I strongly oppose loosing another home on our street or an opportunity to have
another family participate in our small tightknit community.
Sincerely,
Jen Johnson Collier
4026 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 652
Page 653
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
October 2, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21-6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
We would like to express our concern regarding the rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place. We have lived at
4027 N 40th Place for 30 years. Our neighborhood is a small, clearly defined neighborhood. We are on a
cul-de-sac which allows only one entry and exit point. There are currently fourteen residences on the
street. We have enjoyed a close-knit community over the years. We raised our family here and recently
several new young families with children have moved into the neighborhood.
On our street, we have seen eight renovations, remodels or complete rebuilds since 2017. We as a
community have invested a great deal of resources into our properties with the assumption that our
street (including 4048 N. 40th Place) would remain residential.
In addition, in the last eighteen months, six of our residents purchased homes without knowledge that
there might be any kind of zoning change imminent.
We are anxious to preserve the community environment that we have worked hard to maintain and
foster. We feel that the expansion of Studio Ma would adversely impact our small neighborhood both in
its community feel and property values.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 654
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Erin Vecchia
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 1:49 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Sophie,
I am sending this email in regards to the petition to rezone the property at 4048 N 40th Pl. I purchased my home at 4022
N 40th Pl in May of 2021. Based on the extreme housing market I had to pay $50,000 over asking at $1.225 million
dollars. I had no idea or knowledge that there was a residential property on the street, three houses away from my new
home, that was trying to be rezoned until I moved in. I firmly believe that this rezoned residential property will not bring
value to our small community, only hinder it. I have also experienced issues with employees from the Studio MA parking
on our street in front of our homes in the daytime, restaurant parking issues in the evening and general additional traffic
zipping down our cul‐de‐sac from confusion on if it’s a through street. We also hear garbage trucks at 4:30 am from the
commercial and apartments to the rear of my home. I am not in support of the home being rezoned creating additional
issues based on limited parking and more employees. This is a small, quaint street and there are plenty of other
commercial spaces, in already designated areas, that could be used for an expanded office building.
I appreciate the time to listen to our thoughts and concerns.
Thanks,
Erin Reitz Vecchia
4022 N 40th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85018
480‐334‐3118
Page 655
Racelle Escolar
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:57 PM
To: Jay Swart
Cc: Racelle Escolar; Gregory L Harmon; PDD Camelback East VPC; Alan Stephenson; Matthew William Ryne Reyhons
Subject: Case Z-43-21-6
Attachments: Case No. Z-43-21 Matthew Reyhons & Amber Skoog Aug 26th Letter no confirmation.msg; Erin Vecchia
Submission & Confirmation.msg; Fw Case No. Z-43-21 - Jen Collier Johnson Submission & Confirmation.msg;
Fwd Rezoning of 4048 N#Z-43-21-6 Ruth Elwardt Submission & Confirmation.msg; Case No. z-43-21-6 Letter to
Alan Stephenson Director Planning & Development Director.msg; RE Case Z-43-21-6 Communication of Request
for Case to be Reviewed.msg; RE Case Z-43-21-6 Community Letter & Confirmation.msg; RE Case Z-43-21-6
Email from Sofia about Contact Information.msg; Re Case Z-43-21-6 Letter of Apology for Error.msg;
CommunityLetter_20211003_V5_MR.docx
Mr. Swart,
I hope this message finds you well. During Tuesday October 5th Village Planning Committee meeting's second agenda
item was for Case No. 43‐21‐6 the rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place. Residents of our neighborhood have been involved in
both neighborhood meetings held by Studio MA as well as holding our own resident only meeting prior to the Village
Planning Committee meeting. Attached are the submissions sent to Sofia Mastikhina of our concerns as well as
acknowledgements by Sofia. I have also attached the letter in which was written on behalf of the residents after we took
a vote which was unanimous in opposing the rezoning. These submissions while acknowledged by Sofia never had the
chance to be discussed. After discussions with the residents after the committee's meeting, most of whom
were present, we the residents of North 40th Place are requesting the VPC to hear our case at the next assembly given
the above mentioned mistake. We have concerns on how four submissions opposing the case were missed.
Please let us know if this is not the proper avenue of concern as we feel that skipping the resident's opportunity to speak
in the rezoning process is unfair.
Thank You,
Matthew Reyhons
admissible
Page1 656
Racelle Escolar
From: Matt Reyhons
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:06 AM
To: sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov
Cc: Matthew William Ryne Reyhons; Amber Wagers
Subject: Case No. Z-43-21
Attachments: Rezoning Proposal 4048 N 40th PL Phoenix AZ 85018 V1.docx
Good Morning,
Please find attached letter in reference to resident feedback regarding the rezoning of 4048 North 40th Place, Case No.
Z‐43‐21.
Thank You in advance for your assistance.
Best Regards,
Matthew & Amber
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic
download of this pictu re from the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Page1 657
Reference‐
Case No.: Z‐43‐21
Address: 4048 North 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
August 25, 2021
Attn: Sofia Mastikhina
We are writing to you to share our concerns with case number Z‐43‐21. As homeowners who live
directly east of proposed expansion we are opposed to having additional commercial parcels infiltrate
our neighborhood. After attending the August 12th, 2021 neighborhood meeting we are following up
accordingly. Below are a series of our concerns.
The proposed plan calls for a community garden. Due to the area we feel this has safety
concerns and will attract nomadic citizens. Recently we had package theft in the middle of a
weekend day. We feel that a community garden would increase foot traffic and lead to
additional theft, possible property damage and decrease the feel of a quiet neighborhood
located in a cul‐de‐sac. Please reference Complaint No.: 100483610 & Incident No.:
202100001160432 with the City Prosecutor’s Office.
The proposed plan is inconsistent with other streets/communities in the area in which most
have one parcel of commercial zoning whereas this would create two on the west side & only
one of the east side. If allowed to rezone, we feel it would not stop there as opportunities to
continue to infiltrate the neighborhood would be allowed diminishing the community.
The proposed plan is removing a potential new home buyer or rental home. As housing
affordability & rental affordability continues to rise we feel that keeping the residence at 4048
40th place is best for the citizens in our community as potential future citizens.
The parking proposal calls for seven addition spots for a total of 20, 13 of which are existing.
During the meeting on August 12th Studio MA ownership & team members stated that they are
looking to expand 12‐13 employees in the future adding to their current of 12 employees which
does not require enough parking spots for each team member. One of these parking spots is
designated handicap. The result would be parking on the street which creates issues for
services, safety issues for children in the area and contributes to the local restaurant overflow
parking that invades our neighborhood most evenings.
In closing we strongly disagree with the rezoning in our neighborhood and would like to understand
what steps to ensure our voice is heard based on the above concerns.
Amber Skoog & Matthew Reyhons
Residents of 4041 North 40th Place
Page 658
Racelle Escolar
From: Ruth Elwardt
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:47 AM
To: Erin Vecchia; Matt Reynolds; Jen Johnson
Subject: Fwd: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z-43-21-6
I am forwarding what Sophia sent me. She was aware that I asked to speak. This all seems a little fishing to me. There
was either gross incompetence or we were possibly excluded on purpose. I would hate to think that that was the
case. Sophia emailed me on Monday so I don’t understand how she could forgotten about our requests by Tuesday.
It’s sounds like the Planning Committee will not reconsider their decision or call another vote—she seemed to indicate
we just have to attend the next meeting. I would like Sophia or some representative of the planning committee to
express the fact that they failed to recognize our concerns at the last meeting and that the vote was taken without that
information.
Thanks for you efforts. I appreciate the time you’ve put in.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ruth Elwardt
Date: October 6, 2021 at 1:24:43 PM MST
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
Thank you for your speedy response. I appreciate your efforts to correct the situation. As you can
imagine, we were taken totally off guard last night.
Thanks again. We are very appreciative.
Ruth
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 6, 2021, at 9:47 AM, Sofia Mastikhina
Good morning Ruth,
Thank you for reaching out, and my sincere apologies that you did not get a
chance to speak last night. That was my oversight, as I only saw your letter,
which I did forward to the committee, along with the other opposition letters that I
received in the days leading up to the meeting.
The same thing happened with Mr. Reyhons, where I received his letter,
distributed it to the committee, but overlooked his request to speak. He has
already contacted the committee and our department director, so we are all
aware of this. He has also requested that the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee hear and vote on this case again.
Page1 659
This case is scheduled for the November 4, 2021 Planning Commission hearing.
The agenda for this meeting has not been posted yet but, when it is, you will be
able to access it here: https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices.
The agenda will have an email address where you will send your request to
speak on the matter.
For the case to be heard by the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
again, the Planning Commission will have to vote on doing so. Thus, you will
have to request this from the Commission.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information and,
again, my sincere apologies for this oversight.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Ruth Elwardt
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:37 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z‐43‐21‐6
Sophia,
I am wondering just exactly what happened at the planning committee meeting. It was
stated at the outset that there was no opposition which clearly was not the case as we
as a neighborhood sent a letter signed by most if not all our neighbors opposing the
project. You acknowledged our letter so you did receive it. Several other residents
wrote personal letters that I am aware of. I also wrote a personal letter which you
acknowledged. I asked to speak at the meeting which you can affirm by looking at the
above email stream.
We as a community are very disappointed that our concerns were not acknowledged or
heard.
Please respond to these concerns.
Ruth Elwardt
4027 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ
Sent from my iPhone
Page2 660
On Oct 5, 2021, at 9:06 AM, Sofia Mastikhina
Good morning Ruth,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and
forwarded a copy to the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Ruth Elwardt
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 4:35 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place #Z‐43‐21‐6
Dear Sofia,
I have attached a letter expressing my concerns about the rezoning of
4048 N. 40th Place and would like to speak at the Planning Commission
Hearing on October 5th. Case number: Z‐43‐21‐6
Thank you for your consideration,
Ruth Elwardt
Page3 661
Racelle Escolar
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 9:04 AM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog; Anthony Delagarza; Barb Foster; Brad Efune; dan pennington; Erin Vecchia; Heather Greiert; jason
Lupin; Jen Johnson; Katie Baccus; Keenan Tighe; michael Bivens; Ron Elwardt; rosanne pennington; Ruth Elwardt
Subject: RE: Case Z-43-21-6
Good morning Matthew,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog
Johnson
Reynolds
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page1 662
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
September 30, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z‐43‐21‐6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of our neighborhood’s feedback about case no. Z‐
43‐21‐6. During a recent neighborhood meeting we reviewed all options as well as well as discussing the
benefits and concerns each member had and we came to a unanimous consensus that we are opposed
to the rezoning of the 4048 North 40th Place property. Discussion points we feel strongly about justifying
our reasoning are as follows:
Parking – Studio MA’s proposed project plan does not include enough parking. Per Studio Ma’s
projected employee growth, future parking spots and strategy for them to encourage employee
to leverage public transportation, walk to work & or ride bicycles to work is not a concrete
option to combat the parking shortage. We believe this would cause an overflow of parking on
our street of both employees as well as customer/clients of Studio Ma. With the overflow of
parking this will increase the traffic in our neighborhood. The variables of a bus stop, business
traffic on an already high traffic Indian School Road we believe this will create accessibility
exiting our neighborhood as well as a safety issue for all.
Neighborhood – North 40th Place is a rare cul‐de‐sac in the area that is composed of long‐time &
new homeowners that want to keep it a neighborhood. We feel that by having another lot of
our small neighborhood being zoned as commercial it will continue to happen diminishing our
neighborhood. Currently, our street consists of thirteen homes of the original fifteen lots. The
remaining two lots side to Indian School Road and are business occupied. By allowing
commercial zoning further into our neighborhood it takes away from being a desired location to
live, raise a family. In addition, it provides for an avenue of the same rezoning to happen and
take away further homes and neighbors from our community.
Benefit – we do not see how this project benefits our neighborhood or members in anyway,
rather it inhibits our ability to cultivate the neighborhood atmosphere.
Property Value – members of the neighborhood, especially those closest to 4048 N 40th Place,
have concerns of the adverse impact the commercial space will have on our home values.
Page 663
September 30, 2021
Page 2
Estimates from 5‐10% reduction have been given to us by real estate professionals with the
knowledge and experience of how situations such as this has impacted other communities.
Home Prices & Availability – home prices have steadily increased over the last 18‐24 months
making it difficult for some to purchase a home. In addition, new home starts in the Phoenix
Metro outpace the national average while vacant home inventory is at an all‐time low of 1.22*.
Active listings in the Phoenix Metro is 66% less than 18 months ago. We feel that removing a
residence is not the correct thing to do given market conditions.
*Vacant Home Inventory Index is a number, measured in months, until zero new homes would be
available for purchase. Source: NAHB
Housing Price Trend –
Housing Units by Building Permits Trend –
Page 664
September 30, 2021
Page 3
Active Resale Listings Trend
In summary, we as a neighborhood, based on the above reason are opposed to the rezoning of 4048 N
40th Place. If you have any questions about the above statements, please let us know. Thank you for
your time, consideration as well as your understanding.
Sincerely,
Residents of North 40th Place Neighborhood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Neighborhood Members: Address:
Jen Johnson Collier 4026 N. 40th Place
Matthew Reyhons & Amber Skoog 4041 N. 40th Place
Ron & Ruth Elwardt 4027 N 40th Place
Erin Vecchia 4022 N 40th Place
Anthony Delagarza 4037 N 40th Place
Katie Baccus & Jason Lupin 4025 N 40th Place
Bertha Ann Howard 4032 N 40th Place
Mike Bivens 4034 N 40th Place
Page 665
September 30, 2021
Page 4
Brad Efune 4014 N 40th Place
Heather & Kyle Greiert 4018 N 40th Place
Barbara Foster 4008 N 40th Place
Page 666
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Vecchia
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 2:05 PM
To: reyrey4109
Cc: Jen Johnson
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] RE: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Erin Vecchia
Skillsoft
480‐334‐3118
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: October 5, 2021 at 9:10:10 AM PDT
To: Erin Vecchia
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Good morning Erin,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Erin Vecchia
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 1:49 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning at 4048 N 40th Pl
Hi Sophie,
I am sending this email in regards to the petition to rezone the property at 4048 N 40th Pl. I purchased
my home at 4022 N 40th Pl in May of 2021. Based on the extreme housing market I had to pay $50,000
over asking at $1.225 million dollars. I had no idea or knowledge that there was a residential property on
the street, three houses away from my new home, that was trying to be rezoned until I moved in. I
firmly believe that this rezoned residential property will not bring value to our small community, only
hinder it. I have also experienced issues with employees from the Studio MA parking on our street in
front of our homes in the daytime, restaurant parking issues in the evening and general additional traffic
Page1 667
zipping down our cul‐de‐sac from confusion on if it’s a through street. We also hear garbage trucks at
4:30 am from the commercial and apartments to the rear of my home. I am not in support of the home
being rezoned creating additional issues based on limited parking and more employees. This is a small,
quaint street and there are plenty of other commercial spaces, in already designated areas, that could
be used for an expanded office building.
I appreciate the time to listen to our thoughts and concerns.
Thanks,
Erin Reitz Vecchia
4022 N 40th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85018
480‐334‐3118
Page2 668
Racelle Escolar
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:55 PM
To: alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov
Cc: Jen Johnson; Erin Vecchia; Ron Elwardt; Ruth Elwardt; Barb Foster; michael Bivens; Katie Baccus; jason Lupin;
rosanne pennington; Amber Wagers
Subject: Case No. z-43-21-6
Attachments: CommunityLetter_20211003_V5_MR.docx
Alan,
Please let me introduce myself. My name is Matthew Reyhons, resident of 4041 N 40th Place Phoenix, AZ 85018. This
evening we, the members of the community were present for the review of the above mentioned case. We submitted
three letters; one on behalf of the community which was acknowledged by Sofia Mastikhina, and two other members as
well as a request to speak. While Sofia acknowledged the letter sent on behalf of the community we were under the
assumption we would have our two minutes to speak in which, with respect to the committee's time I would present
our points. I feel a response to confirm we wanted to speak would be made clear on her part as the subject matter
expert in the process. I am requesting on behalf of the neighborhood of N 40th Place that we review this case to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee when they next assemble.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
‐Matthew Reyhons
Page1 669
Racelle Escolar
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:55 AM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: RE: Case Z-43-21-6
Hi Matt,
I recommend contacting the Chairman, Mr. Jay Swart, as he is the head of the committee and it may be easier
to coordinate conversations this way. However, the Camelback East VPC will not be able to re-hear the case
unless the Planning Commission votes to remand it back to them. So your best next course of action is to
contact the Planning Commission staff, Racelle Escolar and Gregory Harmon. Please see the contacts below:
Jay Swart, Chair of Camelback East VPC
jayswart@cox.net
Racelle Escolar, Planner III, Planning Commission
racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov
Greg Harmon
greg.harmon@phoenix.gov
Our director, Alan Stephenson, is also aware of the issue, as he reached out to me after receiving your email,
so he will be able to coordinate with hearing bodies to make sure that the community gets a chance to
participate in the process.
The next step now is, like I said, participating in the Planning Commission hearing with your request to remand
the case back to the VPC, if that is your wish.
Thank,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
Thanks for the response. What is the best way to contact the Camelback East Village Planning Committee? While
mistakes happen we as a community feel the process should be reverted due to not having an opportunity to speak.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
Page1 670
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:02 AM Sofia Mastikhina
Good morning Matt,
This case is scheduled for the November 4, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. The agenda for this meeting
has not been posted yet but, when it is, you will be able to access it here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices. The agenda will have an email address where you
will send your request to speak on the matter.
For the case to be heard by the Camelback East Village Planning Committee again, the Planning Commission
will have to vote on doing so. Thus, you will have to request this from the Commission.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information and, again, my sincere apologies for
this oversight.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Page2 671
Good evening Matt,
I just scrolled down to see your original email and I must give you my sincere apologies. In the rush to get everything
ready for the meeting and sending out all new correspondence to the committee, I overlooked your speaking request. I
am deeply sorry about that, as I would never want to hinder meaningful public participation in our hearing processes.
The next opportunity for public input will be at the Planning Commission hearing. I will send you information on how to
participate in the morning.
In the meantime if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Sofia
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:47:02 PM
To: PDD Camelback East VPC
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Please see attached acknowledgement.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
Page3 672
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog
Vecchia
pennington
Good morning Matthew,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog
Vecchia
Page4 673
Elwardt
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page5 674
From: jlynjohnson
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 12:53 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Fw: Case No.: Z‐43‐21
This is what I received. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask to talk to whom ever is above her to discuss the multiple
errors made.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Begin forwarded message:
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 9:14 AM, Sofia Mastikhina
Good morning Jen,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: jlynjohnson@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case No.: Z‐43‐21
October 1st, 2021
Page1 675
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z-43-21
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia:
The purpose of this communication is to inform you of my personal concerns on case
no. Z-43-21. I am the newest resident on the street with my home purchase closing late
July 2021 during a market high. I can tell you I was immediately drawn to my homes
original 1950’s qualities as well as the friendly neighbors found in this community. At the
time of writing an offer and then later contract for my home, the intentions to change
zoning on the residence three lots north of mine were never disclosed. Had this
occurred, I might have reevaluated other options, even in this limited housing inventory
market. As is, my home was shown for one afternoon with limited showings and they
received multiple offers over asking price.
With my home being fairly original and tenant occupied for over a decade, I have a
considerable amount of work and expense in my future. I have concerns about my
property value being negatively impacted if a business is a few doors down from my
front door. My lot already has a lot of vehicle traffic and foot traffic across my back fence
and we have commercial garbage truck pick up at 4:30 each morning not to mention
evening music from food establishments weekend evenings. It does seem that our
neighborhood is at a crossroads with business encroaching from many sides. I strongly
oppose loosing another home on our street or an opportunity to have another family
participate in our small tightknit community.
Sincerely,
Jen Johnson Collier
4026 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page2 676
Racelle Escolar
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:03 AM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: RE: Case Z-43-21-6
Good morning Matt,
This case is scheduled for the November 4, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. The agenda for this meeting
has not been posted yet but, when it is, you will be able to access it here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices. The agenda will have an email address where you
will send your request to speak on the matter.
For the case to be heard by the Camelback East Village Planning Committee again, the Planning Commission
will have to vote on doing so. Thus, you will have to request this from the Commission.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information and, again, my sincere apologies for
this oversight.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Good evening Matt,
I just scrolled down to see your original email and I must give you my sincere apologies. In the rush to get everything
ready for the meeting and sending out all new correspondence to the committee, I overlooked your speaking request. I
am deeply sorry about that, as I would never want to hinder meaningful public participation in our hearing processes.
The next opportunity for public input will be at the Planning Commission hearing. I will send you information on how to
participate in the morning.
In the meantime if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Sofia
Get Outlook for iOS
Page1 677
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:47:02 PM
To: PDD Camelback East VPC
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Please see attached acknowledgement.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog
Johnson
Bivens
Good morning Matthew,
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Page2 678
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog
Johnson
Reynolds
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page3 679
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Matthew Reyhons
Subject: Re: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Good evening Matt,
I just scrolled down to see your original email and I must give you my sincere apologies. In the rush to get everything
ready for the meeting and sending out all new correspondence to the committee, I overlooked your speaking request. I
am deeply sorry about that, as I would never want to hinder meaningful public participation in our hearing processes.
The next opportunity for public input will be at the Planning Commission hearing. I will send you information on how to
participate in the morning.
In the meantime if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Sofia
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:47:02 PM
To: PDD Camelback East VPC
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Please see attached acknowledgement.
Thank You,
‐Matthew Reyhons
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
To: Matthew Reyhons
Cc: mber Skoog
Johnson
Bivens
Good morning Matthew,
Page1 680
Thank you for your letter. I have placed a copy in the case file and forwarded a copy to the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee.
Best regards,
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Matthew Reyhons
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: mber Skoog
Johnson
Reynolds
Subject: Case Z‐43‐21‐6
Sofia,
On behalf of the N 40th Place neighborhood please attached letter expressing our concerns of the proposed project.
Thank You,
N 40th Place Residents
Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
Page2 681
RCVD
11/1/2021
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
October 2, 2021
Attn: Zoning Section, Sofia Mastikhina
Case No.: Z‐43‐21‐6
Rezoning of 4048 N 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Sofia and the City Planning Commission:
We would like to express our concern regarding the rezoning of 4048 N. 40th Place. We have lived at
4027 N 40th Place for 30 years. Our neighborhood is a small, clearly defined neighborhood on a cul‐de‐
sac which allows only one entry and exit point. There are currently fourteen residences on the street.
We have enjoyed a close‐knit community over the years. We raised our family here and recently new
young families with children have moved into the neighborhood.
On our street, we have seen eight renovations, additions, remodels or complete rebuilds since 2017.
We as a community have invested a great deal of resources into our properties with the assumption that
our street (including 4048 N. 40th Place) would remain residential. We are not a declining neighborhood.
Six of the houses in our community are valued at over $1,000,000. Our community should not be seen
as a candidate for regentrification. We are a thriving residential community and the property at 4040 N.
40th Place was always well maintained by the previous owner.
In addition, in the last eighteen months, six of our residents purchased their homes without knowledge
that there might be any kind of zoning change imminent.
We are anxious to preserve the community environment that we have worked hard to maintain and
foster. We feel that the expansion of Studio Ma would adversely impact our small neighborhood both in
its community feel and property values.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ron and Ruth Elwardt
4027 N. 40th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page 682
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
78 item(s)