← Back to meetings

Meeting Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee-4/5/2023 complete

2023-04-05 · Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee

Items: 86

Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee

View on Agenda Online ↗


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: April 5, 2023
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:

Library Advisory Board

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Kathleen Ingley
Ms. Ingley will serve her third term to expire April 5, 2026.

Brenda Thomson
Ms. Thomson will serve her third term to expire April 5, 2026.

Maryvale Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for appointment:

Patricia Jimenez
Ms. Jimenez is the President of the Isaac School District Board and a resident of District
4. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2024.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Ann O’Brien recommends the following for appointment:




Page 12
Gregory Freeman
Mr. Freeman is the Commercial Property Manager at MPB Realty Services, Inc. and a
resident of District 1. He replaces Tom Argiro for a partial term to expire November 19,
2023.




Page 13



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Ojos Locos Sports Cantina

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070056.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
9040 N. Black Canyon Highway
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a bar. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 8, 2023.

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

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

Ojos Locos Sports Cantina (Series 6)
7609 W. Thomas Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 30


Page 14

Liquor license violations: None

Ojos Locos Sports Cantina (Series 6)
1656 S. Alma School Road, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Ojos Locos Sports Cantina (Series 6)
4745 S. Landing Way, 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
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

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 15



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - QuikTrip #465

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 229500.

Summary

Applicant
Perry Huellmantel, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
23550 N. 23rd Ave.
Zoning Classification: A-1 M-R DVAO
Council District: 1

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This business is currently under construction with plans to open in August
2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 7, 2023.

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 16

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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“At QuikTrip, we have a demonstrated record of our ability and commitment to act as a
reliable and capable retailer. I currently serve as the agent on more 100 liquor licenses
in Arizona for QuikTrip Stores. Since I began acting as the agent on QuikTrip liquor
licenses in Arizona, we have not received a single citation for a violation of liquor laws.
We ensure all store managers have current liquor training and maintain strict
standards to ensure all our employees comply with state laws. QuikTrip has proven
that it is a responsible operator and our record demonstrates that I - as an applicant -
and QuikTrip - as an organization - have the capability, reliability and qualifications to
hold 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:
“The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the requested liquor license because this
location will provide consumers in the immediate neighborhood competitively priced
market-style items at a location where they can purchase necessities (everything from
milk to Band-Aids) including extensive beverage offerings beyond beer and wine.
Allowing customers to purchase alcohol while shopping for fuel or other items,
including food, saves time, reduces road congestion, and the additional competition in
the area lowers prices and ensures a high level of service for customers. QuikTrip's
clean and modern design offers an experience consistent with the redevelopment of
this area and will provide an additional option for gasoline and convenience. The best
interest of the community will further be served because QuikTrip is a reliable operator
with a demonstrated ability to responsibility sell alcohol in its stores and it will provide
consumers in the area with more options and better pricing.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any


Page 17

pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - QuikTrip #465
Liquor License Map - QuikTrip #465

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




Page 18
Page 19
Liquor License Map: QUIKTRIP #465
23550 N 23RD AVE




Ü
Date: 3/22/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 20



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Sunoco Gas Station

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 232403.

Summary

Applicant
Siham Mansour, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
3502 W. Dunlap Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1

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 April 22, 2023.

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

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


Page 21

State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

76 Gas Station (Series 10)
1045 N. 24th St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 12
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have experience in managing, operating, and selling beer and wine. I already have
another liquor license series 10 under Isho Petroleum, LLC. I am a responsible owner
and operator and have had no violation of any sort whether selling liquor, tobacco or
any other products. I have recently completed Title 4 Management Liquor Law
Training, see attached, please.”

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 attended to the needs of the neighboring residents and its
customers for several Decades serving the customers with liquor related merchandise.
The location remains quite convenient for the surrounding residents being close to
their liv quarters. This location will hire employees from the neighbors living close by.
The business will generate taxes for the city and the state and thus may contribute in
helping the city serve the community. We are thus Grandfathering the existing
situation.”

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.




Page 22

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sunoco Gas Station
Liquor License Map - Sunoco Gas Station

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




Page 23
Liquor License Data: SUNOCO GAS STATION
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 1

Liquor Store 9 3 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 6

Restaurant 12 7 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 217.99 225.69

Violent Crimes 11.14 40.84 56.79

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 178

Total Violations 90 335




Page 24
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1042051 1264 61 16 7

1042053 1213 89 9 3

1042054 1577 5 21 30

1042061 1580 92 7 28

1042062 1557 65 6 34

1042063 998 92 7 3

1056022 2457 38 23 34

1057011 1471 65 4 6

1057021 2725 66 7 22

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 25
Liquor License Map: SUNOCO GAS STATION
3502 W DUNLAP AVE




Ü
Date: 2/23/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 26



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Jin Jia

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 230609.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
21001 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. 40-1370
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business is
currently being remodeled with plans to open in July 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 8, 2023.

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 27

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.

Nori Sushi (Series 12)
5310 E. High St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 7
Liquor license violations: None

Sizzle Korean BBQ (Series 12)
21001 N. Tatum Blvd., #36-1210 D9B, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 787
Liquor license violations: None

Sizzle Korean Barbecue (Series 12)
3720 N. Scottsdale Road, #200, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Shinbay (Series 12)
3720 N. Scottsdale Road, #201, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Own and operate several locations throughout the valley. I will ensure my employees
attend the Title 4 liquor law training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like to offer our patrons a place to enjoy some amazing modern authentic
Chinese food.”


Page 28


Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Jin Jia
Liquor License Map - Jin Jia

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




Page 29
Liquor License Data: JIN JIA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 11 8

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3

Liquor Store 9 3 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 33 28


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 46.54 122.71

Violent Crimes 11.14 2.73 7.11
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 5

Total Violations 90 5




Page 30
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6150003 344 8% 38 % 5%

6151001 1444 84 % 18 % 8%

6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %

6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%

6152003 867 89 % 26 % 2%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 31
Liquor License Map: JIN JIA
21001 N TATUM BLVD




Ü
Date: 3/14/2023
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 - Special Event - Brophy College Preparatory

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

Summary

Applicant
Julie Peterson

Location
4701 N. Central Ave.
Council District: 4

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 29, 2023 - 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 700 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 33



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - 24/7 Convenience Store

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 230481.

Summary

Applicant
Jaspreet Gill, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
4101 N. 27th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

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 April 16, 2023.

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 34

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the necessary qualifications and capabilities to hold a liquor license I can
assure you that I a, reliable and confident that I can fulfill the requirements of the
License.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Providing a safe and regulated environment for the sale and consumption of Alcoholic,
as well as generating revenue for the local economy.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - 24/7 Convenience Store
Liquor License Map - 24/7 Convenience Store

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




Page 35
Liquor License Data: 24/7 CONVENIENCE STORE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 1 1

Bar 6 4 0

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 20 8

Restaurant 12 5 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 208.14 246.17

Violent Crimes 11.14 72.42 113.58

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 90

Total Violations 90 163




Page 36
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1090011 1552 19 22 42

1090012 3369 0 11 59

1090031 2380 23 26 52

1090032 1204 16 30 56

1090033 1600 22 13 68

1090034 583 5 26 49

1091012 2067 85 10 30

1091022 2966 78 14 50

1169001 2535 66 12 50

1170002 1845 32 9 34

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 37
Liquor License Map: 24/7 CONVENIENCE STORE
4101 N 27TH AVE




Ü
Date: 3/8/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 38



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Fate Brewing Company

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 230025.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4445 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
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. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 8, 2023.

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 39

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.

McFate Brewing Company (Series 12)
201 E. Southern Ave., Ste 111, Tempe
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

McFate Brewing Company (Series 12)
1312 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Fate Brewing Company is a locally owned and operated restaurant expanding into
Phoenix. We ensure our employees have Arizona Title 4 liquor law training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“With existing restaurants in Scottsdale and Tempe we're hoping to continue to provide
our guests exemplary hospitality in Phoenix as well.”

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 - Fate Brewing Company
Liquor License Map - Fate Brewing Company



Page 40

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




Page 41
Liquor License Data: FATE BREWING COMPANY
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 10 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 0

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 2

Restaurant 12 43 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 162.28 150.95

Violent Crimes 11.14 28.92 35.45
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 96

Total Violations 90 160




Page 42
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1086011 1374 18 % 29 % 41 %

1086012 1402 58 % 36 % 46 %

1086021 790 37 % 38 % 22 %

1086022 1187 11 % 25 % 52 %

1086023 650 23 % 34 % 15 %

1086024 1171 24 % 9% 12 %

1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %

1105021 1057 13 % 34 % 30 %

1106003 801 27 % 29 % 49 %

1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 43
Page 44



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - QuikTrip #1419

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 229982.

Summary

Applicant
Perry Huellmantel, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
1157 N. 35th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This business is currently under construction with plans to open in February
2024.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 7, 2023.

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 45

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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“At QuikTrip, we have demonstrated record of our ability and commitment to act as a
reliable and capable retailer. I currently serve as the agent on more 100 liquor licenses
in Arizona for QuikTrip Stores. Since I began acting as an agent on QuikTrip liquor
licenses in Arizona, we have not received a single citation for a violation of liquor laws.
We ensure all store managers have current liquor training and maintain strict
standards to ensure all our employees comply with state laws. QuikTrip has proven
that it is a responsible operator and our record demonstrates that I - as an applicant -
and QuikTrip - as an organization - have the capability, reliability and qualifications to
hold 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:
“The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the requested liquor license because this
location will provide consumers in the immediate neighborhood competitively priced
market-style items at a location where they can purchase necessities (everything from
milk to Band-Aids) including extensive beverage offerings beyond beer and wine.
Allowing customers to purchase alcohol while shopping for fuel or other items,
including food, saves time, reduces road congestion, and the additional competition in
the area lowers prices and ensures a high level of service for customers. QuikTrip's
clean and modern design offers and experience consistent with the redevelopment of
this area and will provide an additional option for gasoline and convenience. The best
interest of the community will further be served because QuikTrip is a reliable operator
with a demonstrated ability to responsibility sell alcohol in its stores and it will provide
consumers in the area with more options and better pricing.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any


Page 46

pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Liquor License Data - QuikTrip #1419
Liquor License Map - QuikTrip #1419

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




Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Stop & Shop

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 224312.

Summary

Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
3345 N. 16th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 10, 2023.

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 51

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 meet all the requirements set forth, entitle for. I have been a responsible business
owner for 20 years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It will allow for continuation of services the community is accustom to.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Stop & Shop
Liquor License Map - Stop & Shop

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




Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Hermandad del Senor de los Milagros (Mesa,
AZ)

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

Summary

Applicant
Carlos Mayandia

Location
7610 W. Indian School Road
Council District: 5

Function
Cultural Celebration

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 21, 2023 - 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. / 370 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 56



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Knights of Columbus Cathedral Council 12708

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

Summary

Applicant
Richard Garrison

Location
6351 N. 27th Ave.
Council District: 5

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 29, 2023 - 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 280 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 57



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Bullocks Cocktail Lounge

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070085.

Summary

Applicant
Gabriel Cabrera, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
2601 W. Bethany Home Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5

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.
This location requires a Use Permit to allow outdoor alcohol consumption.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 10, 2023.

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

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations on file with the AZ


Page 58

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.

Oasis Crossroads Bar & Grill (Series 6)
5030 W. McDowell Road, #39, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 130
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 numerous years operating a bar and currently am an owner of a bar in
Phoenix. I have attended both Basic and Management liquor law training recently and
will ensure that my staff is knowledgeable in Arizona Liquor Law to prevent sales to
obviously intoxicated customers and to identify underage customers. Additionally, I am
aware that it is my responsibility to arrange safe transportation to remove an obviously
intoxicated customer from the bar within 30 minutes.”

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 having previously met location qualifications for the community.
I will continue to provide a safe environment for the customers and will work with
community associations and neighborhoods to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the Arizona citizens.”

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 - Bullocks Cocktail Lounge
Liquor License Map - Bullocks Cocktail Lounge



Page 59

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




Page 60
Liquor License Data: BULLOCKS COCKTAIL LOUNGE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 6 3

Liquor Store 9 6 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 8

Restaurant 12 9 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 229.64 253.92

Violent Crimes 11.14 54.19 78.34

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 140

Total Violations 90 295




Page 61
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1068012 1670 5% 28 % 55 %

1068013 1083 30 % 20 % 33 %

1068022 1105 85 % 21 % 1%

1069002 2629 71 % 5% 22 %

1072022 2085 62 % 5% 22 %

1073001 2203 79 % 3% 6%

1073004 2614 23 % 5% 31 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 62
Liquor License Map: BULLOCKS COCKTAIL LOUNGE
2601 W BETHANY HOME RD




Ü
Date: 3/7/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 63



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Tacos Chisco Bar & Grill

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 232238.

Summary

Applicant
Erika Siqueiros, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1820 W. Northern Ave., Ste. 140
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP RPSPD
Council District: 5

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 April 17, 2023.

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 64

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.

Tacos Chisco (Series 12)
18425 N. 51st Ave., Ste. G, Glendale
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:
“This will be my second business, the first also holds a liquor license. I have been and
will be capable, reliable an qualified to hold a license. I will not let other people
influence or abuse my obligation to be responsible.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The liquor license will only be served of premises of the establishment by following
the Arizona Department of Liquor laws to prevent the abuse of any persons
responsible on premises with respect to the public and best interest of the community.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Tacos Chisco Bar & Grill
Liquor License Map - Tacos Chisco Bar & Grill

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




Page 65
Liquor License Data: TACOS CHISCO BAR & GRILL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 5

Restaurant 12 6 3



Crime Data

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


I Property Crimes 58.75 8.51 3.71

Violent Crimes 11.25 4.85 5.09
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius


Property Violation Data

I Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels wNiolations 51 50
I
I Total Violations 90 100
I




Page 66
Page 67
Page 68



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Sister Cities, Inc.

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

Summary

Applicant
Rita Marko

Location
5107 N. 7th St., Ste. 2
Council District: 6

Function
Sake Tasting

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 29, 2023 - 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. / 100 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 69



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - St. Theresa Council No 13497 Knights
Columbus

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

Summary

Applicant
Michael Harris

Location
5045 E. Thomas Road
Council District: 6

Function
Food and Wine Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
May 6, 2023 - 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 100 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 70



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Birdcall

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 224276.

Summary

Applicant
Mackenzie Holland, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
7025 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

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 alcohol consumption. This business is currently
under construction with plans to open in July 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 17, 2023.

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 71

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.

Birdcall (Series 12)
7204 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Currently, Birdcall has 9 locations with liquor licenses in three states. We have never
received a violation, as we are responsible vendors who train our staff on checking
ID's recognizing intoxicated patrons and not over serving.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We are a family friendly restaurant, that just offers the option of limited alcoholic
beverage services. Fast, high quality, friendly service is our main goal.”

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 - Birdcall
Liquor License Map - Birdcall

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

Page 72
Liquor License Data: BIRDCALL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2

Restaurant 12 13 3

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 67.46 73.24

Violent Crimes 11.14 6.9 5.3
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 74

Total Violations 90 127




Page 73
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1062002 1751 97 6 1

1063002 1099 67 24 17

1063003 1910 50 11 42

1063004 1060 59 22 20

1065011 1458 63 8 10

1066002 2064 83 7 5

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 74
Liquor License Map: BIRDCALL
7025 N 7TH ST




Ü
Date: 3/20/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 75



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Phoenix Pyro

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 230607.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4300 E. Camelback Road, Bldg. H, Ste. 125
Zoning Classification: PUD
Council District: 6

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. This
business is currently under construction with plans to open in May 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 8, 2023.

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 76

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.

Arizona Anthem- Palma Ghost Donkey- Cham Pang Lanes (Series 6)
903 N. 2nd St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 37
Liquor license violations: In March 2023, a fine of $1,500 was paid for failure to request
ID from underage buyer and for selling, giving, or furnishing an underage person with
alcohol.

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:
“Flagship Restaurant Group owns 30 restaurants throughout the United States. They
Own and operate several different successful restaurant concepts and are looking
forward to opening their second Arizona location. All their restaurants operate with
liquor licenses and are experienced with liquor laws. All employees will attend state
certified liquor training classes.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Flagship Restaurant group are foodies gone wild. Since 2002, our established
concepts have centered around creative food and exceptional dining experiences.
Phoenix Pyro will be a Japanese Bistro and the first restaurant opening in The Grove.
It will be a great addition to the newly constructed area.”

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.



Page 77

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Phoenix Pyro
Liquor License Map - Phoenix Pyro

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




Page 78
Liquor License Data: PHOENIX PYRO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Bar 6 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2

Liquor Store 9 3 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2

Restaurant 12 20 15


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 47 72.29

Violent Crimes 11.14 3.13 5.09
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 12

Total Violations 90 21




Page 79
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1051033 1364 100 % 22 % 0%

1079002 1436 98 % 17 % 7%

1079003 1457 31 % 6% 6%

1081001 1849 78 % 1% 7%

1082001 717 56 % 23 % 6%

1082002 1178 45 % 8% 8%

1083011 1100 89 % 14 % 0%

1083013 982 75 % 18 % 1%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 80
Liquor License Map: PHOENIX PYRO
4300 E CAMELBACK RD




Ü
Date: 3/20/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 81



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Pride Incorporated

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

Summary

Applicant
Aimee Meredith

Location
429 W. Jackson St.
Council District: 7

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
May 13, 2023 - 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. / 180 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 82



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix World Arts Collective

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

Summary

Applicant
Carlos Montufar

Location
147 E. Adams St.
Council District: 7

Function
Dance Performance

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 29, 2023 - 6:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 80 attendees
April 30, 2023 - 4:30 p.m. to 8 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 83



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - A Bottle A Day LLC

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 231395.

Summary

Applicant
Charles Van Fleet, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
2440 W. Lincoln St., Ste. 160 A-B
Zoning Classification: A-2
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 11, 2023.

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

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

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

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

Page 84

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I had a restaurant in Fresno CA. for the past 16 years. I had no violations. I have
made several good friends in Napa, Sonoma, Paso Robles. I would like to bring their
wines into the Phoenix and Scottsdale area. I was the President of the California
Restaurant Association and had to work with several state and local agencies during
COVID. It is important to have integrity in business and I believe I have proven that as
my role of Owner and Operator and as President of CRA."

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

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




Page 85



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Culichi Town

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 012070004567.

Summary

Applicant
Kevin Kramber, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2151 N. 83rd Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 9, 2023.

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

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

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

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

Page 86

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“1) I currently am agent on over 200+ licences in Arizona 2) All controlling persons
have disclosed any potential background items 3) Staff had been trained/certified in
Title IV law.”

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 87



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Golden Imperial Products LLC

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 231688.

Summary

Applicant
Brandon Jurkovich, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
625 S. 27th Ave., Ste. 130B-GIP
Zoning Classification: A-2
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 16, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may be given only to the applicant's personal
qualifications and not to 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.

Golden Imperial Products LLC (Series 4)
3021 S. 35th St., Ste. B4, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 2


Page 88

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 successfully operated a liquor wholesale company here in Arizona for several
years without any compliance issues.”

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 89



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Ojos Locos Sports Cantina

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 006070018602.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
7609 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: RSC
Council District: 7

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a bar. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 8, 2023.

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

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

Ojos Locos Sports Cantina (Series 6)
9040 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 70


Page 90

Liquor license violations: None

Ojos Locos Sports Cantina (Series 6)
1656 S. Alma School Road, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Ojos Locos Sports Cantina (Series 6)
4745 S. Landing Way, 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
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

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 91



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - QuikTrip #1449

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 232047.
Summary

Applicant
Perry Huellmantel, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2801 S. 107th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This business is currently under construction with plans to open in December
2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 17, 2023.

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

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

Page 92

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:
“At QuikTrip, we have demonstrated record of our ability and commitment to act as a
reliable and capable retailer. I currently serve as the agent on more 150 liquor licenses
in Arizona for QuikTrip stores. Since I began acting as the agent on QuikTrip liquor
licenses in Arizona, we have not received a single citation for a violation of liquor laws.
We ensure all store managers have current liquor training and maintain strict
standards to ensure all our employees comply with state laws. QuikTrip has proven
that it is a responsible operator and our record demonstrates that I - as an applicant -
and QuikTirp - as an organization - have the capability, reliability and qualifications to
hold 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:
“The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the requested liquor license because this
location will provide consumers in the immediate neighborhood competitively priced
market-style items at a location where they can purchase necessities (everything form
milk to Band-Aids) including extensive beverage offerings beyond beer and wine.
Allowing customers to purchase alcohol while shopping for fuel or other items,
including food, saves time, reduces road congestion, and the additional competition in
the area lowers prices and ensures a high level of service for customers. QuikTrip's
clean and modern design offers an experience consistent with the redevelopment of
this area and will provide an additional option for gasoline and convenience. The best
interest of the community will further be served because QuikTrip is a reliable operator
with a demonstrated ability to responsibly sell alcohol in its stores and it will provide
consumers in the area with more options and better pricing.”

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.




Page 93


Attachments
Liquor License Data - QuikTrip #1449
Liquor License Map - QuikTrip #1449

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




Page 94
Liquor License Data: QUIKTRIP #1449
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1

Restaurant 12 2 1



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 16.93 15.92

Violent Crimes 11.14 3.26 2.86

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 9

Total Violations 90 9


Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

0822031 3552 88 0 7

0822032 946 88 47 23

0822071 1115 96 11 2

0822102 1591 78 15 10

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 95
Liquor License Map: QUIKTRIP #1449
2801 S 107TH AVE




Ü
Date: 3/8/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 96



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Liberty Wildlife, Inc.

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

Summary

Applicant
Margaret Mosby

Location
2600 E. Elwood St.
Council District: 8

Function
Education Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 16, 2023 - 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. / 200 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 97



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Roosevelt Row Community Development
Corporation

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

Summary

Applicant
Adan Madrigal

Location
901 N. 5th St.
Council District: 8

Function
Block Party Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 14, 2023 - 4:20 p.m. to Midnight / 7,500 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 98



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - PHX Beer Co/Scramble/Ajo Al's

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 012070009774.

Summary

Applicant
Thomas Romig, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T3N, F10
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 11, 2023.

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

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

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

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

Page 99

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been in the Food and Beverage Concession industry since 1972. I owned a
wine store/restaurant for eight (8) years. I have held different responsibilities in
managing six (6) companies, including SSP America, in operating food and beverage
concessions.”

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 100



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Tavern

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 07070480.

Summary

Applicant
Thomas Romig, Agent

License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar

Location
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T3S, F6
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a bar. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 11, 2023.

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

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

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

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

Page 101

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because: “I
have been in the Food and Beverage Concession industry since 1972. I owned a
wine store and restaurant for eight years. I have held different responsibilities in
managing six companies, including SSP America, in operating food and beverage
concessions.”

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 102



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Tavern

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 12070003102.

Summary

Applicant
Thomas Romig, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T3S, F6
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 11, 2023.

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

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

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

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

Page 103

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because: “I
have been in the Food and Beverage Concession industry since 1972. I owned a
wine store and restaurant for eight years. I have held different responsibilities in
managing six companies, including SSP America, in operating food and beverage
concessions.”

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 104



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Humble Tortas & Tacos

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 230470.

Summary

Applicant
Thomas Romig, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd., T3S, F9
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

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 April 11, 2023.

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

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


Page 105


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been in the Food and Beverage Concession industry since 1972. I owned a
wine store/restaurant for eight (8) years. I have held different responsibilities in
managing six (6) companies, including SSP America, in operating food and beverage
concessions.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
"Humble Tortas and Tacos will be able to provide the general public demand for a
variety of adult beverages to choose from to pair with their ordered meals. This will be
a convenient service to the visitors airport employees and passengers at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport - similar to other major airports in the United States."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Humble Tortas & Tacos
Liquor License Map - Humble Tortas & Tacos

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




Page 106
Liquor License Data: HUMBLE TORTAS & TACOS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Conveyance 8 10 6

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0

Restaurant 12 21 8

Club 14 4 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 51.96 88

Violent Crimes 11.14 2.20 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 51 0

Total Violations 90



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 107
Liquor License Map: HUMBLE TORTAS & TACOS
3400 E SKY HARBOR BLVD




Ü
Date: 3/23/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 108



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Samsara

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 230375.

Summary

Applicant
Hilal Yousufzai, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
905 N. 4th St.
Zoning Classification: DTC- Evans Churchill East
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 15, 2023.

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 109


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 met all the necessary legal requirements, possess a thorough understanding of
all regulations and responsibilities associated with holding a liquor license. I'm
commitment to maintaining a safe and responsible environment for patrons. I have
over 8 years of experience and training in the industry. I have also completed title 4
management and title 4 basic liquor law training to ensure proper alchol service and
have a track record of responsible behavior throughout my life.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The availability of alcohol is a key component of social gatherings and events. The
granting of a liquor license will enable my businesses to provide this service to our
customers. Also, the revenue generated from the sale of alcohol will contribute to
economic growth of the community. Proper Regulation and enforcement of liquor laws
will ensure that the sale and consumption of Alcohol is done responsibly, promoting
public safety and preventing alcohol-related incidents.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Samsara
Liquor License Map - Samsara

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




Page 110
Liquor License Data: SAMSARA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Microbrewery 3 4 2

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 7 5

Bar 6 45 13

Beer and Wine Bar 7 16 8

Liquor Store 9 4 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 8

Hotel 11 6 3

Restaurant 12 116 44

Club 14 2 0



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 58.23 230.57 286.09

Violent Crimes 11.14 51.22 62.42

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 127

Total Violations 90 241




Page 111
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1130001 1218 23 16 11

1130002 873 29 21 38

1131002 1242 3 7 33

1132021 731 33 20 74

1132022 1257 47 29 55

1132031 1473 30 20 57

1132032 638 28 7 70

1140001 1831 25 20 47

1141001 2299 16 37 44

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 112
Liquor License Map: SAMSARA
905 N 4TH ST




Ü
Date: 2/22/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 113




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-49529) (Items 33-39)
Ordinance S-49529 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.

33 Welch Allyn, Inc.
For $23,000 in payment authority to purchase a three-year SmartCare
Protection Plus service program and one-year SmartCare Complete
Onsite Plus preventative maintenance (PM) service for the Phoenix Fire
Department. The Fire Health and Wellness Center is responsible for
performing cardiac stress testing for firefighters and police officers to
comply with the United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) mandatory physical exams. The Quinton Q-S6
electrocardiogram and TM55 treadmill equipment including related
accessories are heavily used when performing annual physicals. The
wear and tear on the devices could impact the Fire Health and Wellness
Center's ability to properly perform exams. SmartCare Protection Plus
service program and SmartCare Complete Onsite Plus PM service will
cover the routine maintenance that is performed to keep biomedical
equipment up to manufacturer specifications.

34 AvantPage Inc.
For $15,000 in payment authority to purchase nine months of Spanish
translation services for the Communication Department. The City is
committed to an open and inclusive budget process, which requires
providing prompt, accurate and comprehensive information to


Page 114

Spanish-speaking residents. Failure to do so would prevent full
participation by Spanish speakers and negatively impact the entire budget
process. AvantPage has expertise with the City's budget materials,
financial vocabulary, technical language, and formatting abilities involved
in producing the FundPHX interactive tool, the budget tabloid, annual
budget books, and other written outreach materials to the
Spanish-speaking community. AvantPage can meet the rapid
turnaround-times necessary for the budget process. AvantPage is the
most cost-effective and experienced vendor to translate Fiscal Year (FY)
2023-24 budget materials, and has a proven track record of providing
accurate, timely and precise Spanish language budget materials. Funding
is available through the Communications Department budget for FY
2022-23 and FY 2023-24.

35 Broadcast Music, Inc.
For $65,000 in payment authority for the purchase of an annual music
license subscription for the Parks and Recreation Department. The
license allows copyrighted music to be played at all City parks and
facilities. The payment authority is for calendar years 2023 through 2027.
The license will be renewed and paid annually.

36 AGM Container Controls, Inc., doing business as
Ascension
For $38,000 in payment authority to purchase a portable hydraulic
wheelchair lift for the Phoenix Convention Center Department (PCCD).
The wheelchair lifting device will be utilized by individuals with disabilities
to gain access to the riser stages during meetings and events. It is
important for PCCD to have multiple portable wheelchair lifts to service
the three convention center buildings and the various portable stages that
are frequently used. This lift is similar to other wheelchair lifts used at
PCCD and is compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements.

37 Copper State Supply, Inc.
For $55,000 in payment authority for a new contract with Copper State
Supply, Inc., to be entered into on or about June 1, 2023, for a term of
five years, for the purchase of asphalt lutes for the Street Transportation
Department. Asphalt lutes are used to spread asphalt to create a smooth


Page 115

and even surface for vehicular traffic when there is repair or replacement
of asphalt.

38 Highland Products Group/The Park Catalog
For $16,842.11 in payment authority to purchase 80 bicycle racks for the
Street Transportation Department. The purpose of this order is to procure
bicycle racks for the City's public bike rack program. Through this
program, residents and businesses can request the installation of a bike
rack in the public right-of-way. Bike racks can be used in the right-of-way
for not only bikes but micro-mobility vehicles. The type of rack is a 2-3/8"
surface mounted inverted "U" rack with black powder coating.

39 Settlement of Claim(s) Monge v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $50,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Monge v.
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement for a bodily injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident
on Jan. 25, 2021, involving the Fire Department.




Page 116



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Grant an Easement to Salt River Project Across City-owned
Property Within the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel (Ordinance S-49530)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an easement to Salt
River Project (SRP) across City-owned property within the Laveen Area Conveyance
Channel (LACC), for consideration in the amount of the appraised value. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.

Summary
SRP requires an easement within the LACC for the installation, operation and
maintenance of electrical facilities providing service to McClellan Ranch. The
easement will connect the Pulte Homes property to SRP's power grid, which provides
service to the surrounding homes. Maricopa County Flood Control District has
reviewed the plans and has determined that the LACC would not be negatively
impacted. All costs related to the easement will be paid by Pulte Homes.

Location
Within the LACC, along the South 70th Avenue alignment, identified by Maricopa
County Assessor parcel numbers 300-01-005V, 300-01-005M and 300-01-001A.
Council District: 7

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




Page 117



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance of Easements for Drainage Purposes (Ordinance S-49543)

Request for the City Council to accept easements 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: Tabarka Properties LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 21152 N. 22nd St.
File: FN 230008
Council District: 2

Easement (b)
Applicant: Prime Storage West Phoenix Land, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 9210 W. Indian School Road
File: FN 220076
Council District: 5

Easement (c)
Applicant: 4800 S 16th, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 4949 S. 16th St.
File: FN 220087
Council District: 8

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



Page 118



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of a Deed and Easements for Roadway, Public Utility
and Sidewalk Purposes (Ordinance S-49549)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate a deed and easements for
roadway, public utility and sidewalk purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

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

Deed (a)
Applicant: Prime Storage West Phoenix Land, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 9210 W. Indian School Road
File: FN 220076
Council District: 5

Easement (b)
Applicant: Catherine Ann Sanchez and George Sanchez; Jesse D. Razo and Mary E.
Razo, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 8634 S. 3rd St.
File: FN 230012
Council District: 8

Easement (c)
Applicant: Phoenix Pipelines, Inc., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 3801 E. Winslow Ave.
File: FN 230009
Council District: 8

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

Page 119



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Library eCARD Customer Online Verification & Services Contract - EXC 23-048 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-49532)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
The Quipu Group, LLC to provide customer identity verification services for the Library
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $249,260.

Summary
This contract will provide the Library Department the ability to purchase services,
which include eCARD library registrations or renewals, hosting/access, unlimited basic
name and address verifications, maintenance, and support. This contract allows for
optional purchases of add-on services such as multi-factor authentication, which adds
challenge questions as an additional layer of verification, and Patron Incident Tracking
Systems, which is used to assist library staff to record and track security incidents from
patrons. The adoption of this contract improves customer service, reduces staff time,
and is necessary for citywide library operations.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances - Without Competition. The Library Department has been using
The Quipu Group, LLC's technology since 2014, which was created for the City and it
added new functionality for customers to renew library card accounts online. This
technology developed by the vendor provides efficient customer service and resides
on Phoenix library servers to meet City security standards. Entering into a contract
with this vendor reduces any risk associated with having to create custom software
from a different vendor, ensures that city libraries continue to get seamless customer
support, and best aligns with the department's needs.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 01, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Page 120

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $249,260 for the five-year aggregate
term.

Funding is available in the Library Department operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.




Page 121



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Agreement with BEM Systems, Inc., to Extend Term for
Real Estate Management System (Ordinance S-49538)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Technology
Products and Professional Services Agreement 140770 with BEM Systems, Inc., to
provide two additional one-year options to extend the term. Further request
authorization or the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
BEM currently provides the Finance Department's Real Estate Division with
maintenance, customer support and hosting services for the PAECETrak real estate
acquisition management system. PAECETrack is a proprietary web-based software
application developed and owned exclusively by BEM Systems, Inc. (BEM). The
current agreement expires on April 26, 2023, with no options to extend. PAECETrack is
utilized to manage real estate business processes such as property acquisition,
appraisal services, environmental assessments, leases, easements, relocation, and
title services necessary for all Citywide real estate projects and transactions. In
addition to the current Citywide acquisition projects in process, additional projects are
anticipated as the result of the Transportation Infrastructure Bill and Capital
Infrastructure Program (CIP) projects. Any disruptions or loss of data related to
changing systems mid-project would be a significant risk in meeting project schedules
and reporting requirements. Therefore, staff recommends extending the current
agreement for two, one-year periods to provide uninterrupted acquisition services and
maintain essential project and acquisition information required for reporting.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of a determination memo citing sole source. PAECETrak is a proprietary web-
based software application developed by BEM; no other firm can update, maintain, or
enhance this proprietary software.




Page 122

Contract Term
The first year of the agreement will begin April 27, 2023, through April 26, 2024, with
the additional one-year option to extend through April 26, 2025.

Financial Impact
The extended term is $74,252.70, plus applicable taxes, with the cost to escalate three
percent annually. Aggregate expenditures for the two option periods will not exceed
$150,733, plus applicable taxes. Funds are available in the Finance Department's
operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
• Agreement 140770 and Amendments 1, 2, and 3 (Ordinance S-41583) on April 15,
2015; and
• Agreement 140770 and Amendments 4, 5, and 6 (Ordinance S-46374) on Feb. 19,
2020.

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




Page 123



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Respond Billing Support and Maintenance Contract - EXC 23 - 100 Request for
Award (Ordinance S-49540)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC to provide Respond Billing Support and
Maintenance for the Emergency Transportation Section (ETS) of the Phoenix Fire
Department (PFD). Further request an exception to the indemnity and assumption of
liability provisions of Phoenix City Code section 42-18. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract
will not exceed $400,000.

Summary
This contract will provide continued support and maintenance for the Respond Billing
accounts receivable system that is utilized by the Fire Department for ambulance
related revenue recovery. Respond Billing is a proprietary application which is
developed and maintained by CentralSquare Technologies, LLC. CentralSquare
routinely deploys system updates and patches to ensure that the system incorporates
current billing practices and complies with various Federal and State billing
requirements. Continued support and maintenance for Respond Billing and its add-on
modules will ensure that staff generate accurate bills and recover revenue owed to the
City without prolonged technical or system issues.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Respond Billing is a proprietary application developed and supported by
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC. No other vendor can provide technical support of
the Respond Billing system.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about April 13, 2023, for a five-year term.



Page 124

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $400,000 for the five-year aggregate
term. Funding is available in the Fire Department's budget.

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




Page 125



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - RFP 08-0603 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-49541)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 125890 with Versaterm Public Safety, Inc. (Versaterm) to extend the contract
term. Further request an exception to the indemnity and assumption of liability
provisions of Phoenix City Code section 42-18. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not
exceed $4,899,348.

Summary
This contract will provide ongoing maintenance for the CAD/911 System and is
proprietary to Versaterm. Maintenance support is crucial to resolving system issues in
a timely manner with few or no interruptions. In addition to collecting calls for service
and dispatching, the system is integrated with the Department of Public Safety for
vehicle and suspect information, accessing various state and national criminal justice
networks to provide suspect or vehicle information to officers. The continued
maintenance of the department's CAD/911 System is critical to ensure there are no
interruptions to dispatchers that utilize the system to prioritize and record incident calls,
identify the status and location of first responders and effectively dispatch priority calls
for service. The additional funds will ensure the continuation of this service throughout
the five-year extension of the contract term. The Application Software License
Agreement portion of this contract is a perpetually renewing document until notice of
termination is issued in accordance with the Agreement. The Application Software
Support Agreement portion of this contract mirrors the term of this contract.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through June 30, 2028.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $4,899,348 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $18,330,579. Funds are available in the Police Department’s


Page 126

budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-36018) on April 8, 2009;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-38805) on May 16, 2012;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-39735) on April 3, 2013;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-40717) on April 2, 2014;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-40837-AU) on May 28, 2014;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-41972-F) on Aug. 26, 2015;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-42565-F) on June 1, 2016;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-42892-J) on Oct. 5, 2016;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-43732) on June 28, 2017;
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Mobile Data Computer System - Contract 125890
(Ordinance S-49049) on Oct. 12, 2022.

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
Citywide Fence Supply and Service - IFB 18-207 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
49556)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contract 147320 with Western Fence Co., Inc.; Contract 147321 with Phoenix Fence
Company; and Contract 147322 with LP Steel Industries, LLC, to modify scope of work
and extend contract terms. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $3,815,000.

Summary
These contracts provide various types of fencing supplies and services related to
installation, repair, and replacement of chain-link, block, and ornamental fencing,
gates, and fencing rental; additionally, the contracts have been amended to include
fencing for the Neighborhood Services Department's Gated Alley Program. Fencing
provided through these contracts are routinely used to secure City facilities from
vandalism and theft. The contracts are also used to secure and mitigate risk at City-
operated construction sites. This wide scope of supplies and services has increased
both the complexity of, and spend on, the existing contracts. As such, it was
determined that additional time would be required to satisfactorily complete the re-
procurement of the supplies and services covered under these contracts. A six-month
extension will allow for the most thorough and cost-effective solicitation process, and
additional contract pay authority is needed for the extension period and additional
requirements.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contracts will be extended through Oct. 31, 2023.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $3,815,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $10,292,000. Funds are available in the various department
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Citywide Fence Supply and Services Contracts 147320, 147321, and 147322


Page 128

(Ordinance S-44486) on April 18, 2018;
• Increase Expenditure Authority for Citywide Fence Supply and Services Contracts
147320, 147321, and 147322 (Ordinance S-46556) on May 6, 2020;
• Fence Supply and Services Contracts 147320, 147321, and 147322 (Ordinance S-
47987) on Oct. 6, 2021; and
• Ordinance Authorizing Additional Expenditures for Citywide Fence Supply and
Services Contracts 147320, 147321, and 147322 (Ordinance S-49223) on Dec. 7,
2022.

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




Page 129



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Audio Visual Services for City Meetings - IFB 16-022 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
49557)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 142347 with Skyline Productions, Inc., to extend the contract term. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No
additional funds are needed, request to continue using Ordinance S-47352.

Summary
This contract will provide audio and visual (A/V) services to conduct City Council
formal, policy and subcommittee meetings to ensure A/V equipment works properly
prior to and during the meetings. Additional time is needed to complete the solicitation
process.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Sept. 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $332,000 and no additional funds
are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Audio/Visual Services for City Meetings Contract 142347 (Ordinance S-42375) on
March 23, 2016;
• Audio/Visual Services for City Meetings Contract 142347 (Ordinance S-47352) on
March 3, 2021.

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




Page 130



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Transfer of Retirement Funds to Arizona State Retirement System (Ordinance S-
49546)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Richard Mendolia in the amount of $10,249.52 to the Arizona State Retirement
System. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds.

Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-922, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of their credited service:

Mendolia, Richard: $10,249.52

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at the March 2, 2023 meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.




Page 131



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Amend Contract with Teaching Strategies, LLC for Head Start Birth to
Five Program (Ordinance S-49537)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract
141887 with Teaching Strategies, LLC for the Head Start Birth to Five Program by
extending the contract term through June 30, 2024, and increasing the contract
amount by $90,000. The extension will provide continued use of the online child
assessment tool. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
To ensure statewide consistency in early childhood assessment, the Arizona
Department of Education (ADOE) mandates all early childhood programs purchase the
same assessment tool. The Head Start Birth to Five Program utilizes Teaching
Strategies Gold, the approved ADOE assessment tool. The early childhood
assessment tool is designed to measure children's progress, appropriately plan for
children's learning, implement best practices, and meet the accountability
requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,
Part B, Section 619. The City entered into a contract with Teaching Strategies, LLC on
July 1, 2015, following the ADOE statewide contract.

Procurement Information
Teaching Strategies was selected through an ADOE Request for Proposal RFP-ADED
15-00004546 for a statewide Early Childhood Assessment tool to be utilized by other
state agencies, political subdivisions and Head Start grantees.

The ADOE contract with Teaching Strategies expired on March 22, 2020. ADOE
entered into a one-year agreement, Agreement CTR048634, with Teaching Strategies,
LLC extending the contract terms through June 30, 2021, allowing time to procure a
new provider. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, ADOE was unable to complete the
procurement process. As such, an additional extension through June 30, 2023, with
Teaching Strategies was secured by ADOE. ADOE is currently working to procure
Teaching Strategies as a Sole Source; at this time, they do not have an estimated time
of completion.



Page 132

In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, a Determination Memo citing a
need to extend the City's current contract beyond the maximum option years was
approved on April 10, 2020.

Contract Term
The original five-year contract began on July 1, 2015, with four one-year extension
options exercised by the City Manager. Approval of this request would extend the
contract through June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
Funding in the amount of $90,000 is being added to increase the total contract value to
$634,000. Funding is available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration of Children, Youth and Families. There is no impact on the
General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
An extension through Dec. 31, 2020, was approved on June 3, 2020, with Ordinance S
-46682. An extension through June 30, 2021, was approved on Sept. 2, 2020, with
Ordinance S-46899. The most recent extension through June 30, 2023, was approved
with Ordinance S-47475 on April 21, 2021.

The Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council recommended approval of this item on
March 13, 2023, by a vote of 21-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 133



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Professional Resume Development and Related Services Qualified Vendor List
(Ordinance S-49542)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to award and enter into
contracts with responsive offerors to the Request for Qualifications (RFQu) for
Professional Resume Development and Related Services Qualified Vendor List.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $500,000 for the life of the Qualified Vendor List (QVL). Funds
are available from the City’s allocation of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) grant funds.

Summary
This contract will provide professional resume development and related services to
include: resume writing consultation for job seekers who have three or more years of
experience in supervisory, managerial, technical, or other professional positions with a
degree or job seekers with equivalent experience without a degree; resume writing
consultation for job seekers at the beginning of their career or limited experience;
resume writing consultation for job seekers who have recently separated from the
military; and resume critiquing services for participants attending an
ARIZONA@WORK City of Phoenix or WIOA partners sponsored event such as a job
fair, other hiring event, or employer layoff events.

Procurement Information
RFQu-22-BWDD-61 was conducted in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. HSD received a total of four offers on Jan. 31, 2023, and two offers
were determined to be responsive and responsible to the solicitation requirements.

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

1. At least three years' experience of professional resume writing experience
2. The City prefers Offerors have one of the following certifications, but this is not a
mandatory requirement:



Page 134

· Certified Employment Interview Consultant
· Certified Job and Career Transition Coach
· Certified Professional Resume Writer
· Certified Resume Writer
· Credentialed Career Master
· Nationally Certified Resume Writer

3. Offeror(s) proposing to conduct workshops must have a minimum of 3 years'
experience conducting workshops geared toward assisting job seekers in securing
employment.

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

· AZ Treasured Family Services, LLC
· Thomas Resources, LLC

Contract Term
This QVL will be in effect from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2028.

Financial Impact
The total cost of the contracts will not exceed $500,000 over the life of the QVL in
aggregate. Funds are available from the City’s allocation of WIOA grant funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 135



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Head Start Birth to Five Program Professional Development Training Services
Qualified Vendors List - RFQu-22-EDU-72 (Ordinance S-49552)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve a Qualified
Vendors List (QVL) and enter into agreements with responsive offerors, on an as
needed basis, to provide professional development training to parents, staff and
community partners through professional speakers and trainers. The aggregate value
of all contracts issued under the QVL will not exceed $500,000. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
Head Start prepares America’s most vulnerable young children to succeed in school
and life beyond school. To achieve this, Head Start programs deliver services to
children and families in the core areas of early learning, health and family well-being
while engaging parents.

Professional development for Head Start Birth to Five staff and parent education for
enrolled families is essential to ensure high-quality services are being delivered to
support families on the road to well-being and self-sufficiency. The Head Start Birth to
Five Program is seeking experts in the field of early education, social services, parent
engagement, family well-being, health and safety, fatherhood, and mental health to
provide in-depth comprehensive training to staff and parents. The presentations must
be geared toward adult learners, include multiple modalities, be engaging, and vary
based on learning formats.

The QVL is meant to identify highly qualified professionals who can provide information
or skill development that may lead to behavioral changes for families, staff members,
and/or community partners.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was conducted in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Eighteen proposals were received on Jan. 20, 2023. Seventeen were deemed
responsive and responsible to the solicitation requirements. The procurement officer


Page 136

evaluated the offers using a pass/fail evaluation matrix under the following criteria:

· Five years of experience.
· Professional license, certificate, credential, degree in area of expertise, or
publication verification.
· Provided documentation of a minimum of one professional development event or
five hours of technical assistance each year for the last three years.
· Reference checks with positive results.
· Provided a description of the training sessions and topics including measurable
outcomes, process improvements, unique information, tools/takeaways, and
attendee involvement.
· No active exclusions found on the System for Award Management database.
· In good standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission.

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

· AVID Consulting, LLC
· Children’s Literacy Initiative
· Emperador Enterprises dba Sol Discovery
· Family and Community Educational Services of AZ, LLC dba FACES of AZ, LLC
· Dr. Maria Church International, LLC
· Gurian Institute, LLC
· Highscope Educational Research Foundation
· Jinny Smith
· Lakeshore Parent, LLC and Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC
· RONSPEAK, LLC
· SEAR, LLC dba Institute for Child Preparedness
· Southwest Human Development, Inc.
· Teaching Strategies, LLC
· Time to Sign, Inc.
· Western Kentucky University Research Foundation, Inc. dba Training & Technical
Assistance Services (T/TAS)
· White’s Premiere Consultants
· ZERO TO THREE

Contract Term
The QVL will be in effect on or about April 5, 2023, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.

Page 137

Financial Impact
Expenditures shall not exceed $500,000 over the life of the QVL. Funding for Head
Start 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 Sept. 28, 2022, the Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council approved the request to
release Financial Literacy Training and Coaching Services Request for Qualifications.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 138



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Contract 155773 with Prefix Health Technologies, LLC
for Client Portal Use (Ordinance S-49558)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 155773
with Prefix Health Technologies, LLC (Prefix) to add additional spending authority up to
$80,000 for a total contract value not to exceed $640,000 over the life of the contract.
Further, request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding will be provided through the
U.S. Department of Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Program pursuant
to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), enacted March 11, 2021.

Summary
The City’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program provides financial relief to residents
needing rent and utility assistance due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding for this
program is granted through the U.S. Department of Treasury Emergency Rental
Assistance Program pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, enacted
on Dec. 27, 2020 (ERA 1.0) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), enacted
March 11, 2021 (ERA 2.0).

In January 2022, the City contracted for access to the Prefix online application portal to
provide emergency rent and utility assistance to Phoenix residents using ERA 2.0
funding, available pursuant to ARPA. Additional ERA funding was provided to the
Human Services Department which has extended the timeframe of the program. This
contract amendment will allow the continued use of Prefix software to administer ERA
funds.

Contract Term
The term of this contract began on Jan. 18, 2022, through June 30, 2022, with a six-
month option to extend through Dec. 31, 2022, at the discretion of the City Manager or
his designee. This contract was extended for one six-month period through June 30,
2023, based on continuous need and available funding at the discretion of the City
Manager or his designee.

Financial Impact
Expenditures will not exceed $640,000 over the life of the contract. The additional


Page 139

funding will be provided through the U.S. Department of Treasury Emergency Rental
Assistance (ERA) Program pursuant to ARPA, enacted March 11, 2021. There is no
impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On Dec.15, 2021, the City Council approved the contract with Prefix Health
Technologies, LLC with Ordinance S-48204.
· On June 15, 2022, the City Council approved a contract extension until June 30,
2023, with Ordinance S-48754.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 140



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acquisition of Building Located at 8130 North Black Canyon Highway
(Ordinance S-49566)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and enter into a
purchase agreement and any other agreements necessary with Mohit Developers,
LLC, for the purchase of the Super 8 Motel building located at 8130 N. Black Canyon
Highway (Site). Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The acquisition cost is $9.145 million and an estimated
$2.555 million will be allocated for additional fees associated with the acquisition and
minor repairs prior to a future renovation for a total not to exceed amount of $11.7
million. There is no impact to the General Fund for the purchase of the Super 8 Motel
building. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under the
Affordable Housing and Homelessness category of the strategic plan.

Summary
The City of Phoenix will acquire the Site and convert it to affordable rental housing
units with on-site supportive services. The site will require future renovations to ensure
the units are safe and sanitary. The hotel conversion will also support a larger
community revitalization effort including Innovation 27, just to the south of the hotel
property and The Haven, a building to the north of the future housing complex that is
currently being renovated by a private nonprofit entity to be an emergency shelter for
seniors. All three projects will help in the revitalization of the community.

Financial Impact
Total funding for the purchase of the Site, including any fees and minor repairs, will not
exceed $11.7 million. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available
through the City's allocation of the ARPA funds received from the federal government.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The City Council previously approved the ARPA Strategic Plan during the June 8,
2021, and June 7, 2022, Policy Sessions.
· The City Council passed the use of $11.7 million in reallocated ARPA funds for the
acquisition and renovation of a hotel on Dec. 14, 2022.



Page 141


Location
8130 N. Black Canyon Highway
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 142



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Commission on the Arts Fiscal Year 2023-24 Creative Capacity Grants
Application (Ordinance S-49539)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, and, if awarded,
accept and enter into an agreement for up to $50,000 in Arizona Commission on the
Arts (ACA) Creative Capacity Grant funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. The grant
funds would be used by the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture in FY 2023-24 to
support initiatives identified through the Office's planning process with the local cultural
community. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The ACA Creative Capacity Grant is a flexible funding category developed to support
and assist arts and culture organizations to produce, present, teach or serve the arts in
our community. Funds may be used to support agency operations and special projects.
The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture has applied for and received annual grant
funds from the ACA since 1994.

If awarded, the grant funds will support the development and distribution of
informational materials regarding the arts and cultural community; provision of
management and technical assistance services to artists and cultural organizations;
development of educational public outreach programs that promote an appreciation of
arts and culture; and support for community arts and culture initiatives.

Financial Impact
The ACA Creative Capacity Grants requires a 1:1 match by applicants. The Phoenix
Office of Arts and Culture FY 2023-24 General Purpose Fund appropriation will be
used to match the FY 2023-24 grant award.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.




Page 143



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Bloomberg Public Art Challenge Grant Application (Ordinance S-49550)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, and, if awarded,
accept and enter into an agreement for up to $650,000 in Bloomberg Public Art
Challenge funds for Fiscal Years (FY) 2023-24 and 2024-25. The grant funds would be
used by the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture to support the ¡Sombra! initiative
identified through the department's planning process. Further request authorization for
the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item.

Summary
The Bloomberg Philanthropies' Public Art Challenge encourages cities to partner with
artists, elevating the value of including the creative sector when developing solutions
to significant urban issues. The program supports temporary public art projects that
celebrate creativity, enhance urban identity, and encourage public-private
collaborations.

If awarded, the grant funds will support a free, family-friendly festival that introduces a
dialogue about Phoenix's urban heat challenges to a new audience. The festival will
engage residents with experiential and educational public art installations and activities
for children, food, and music to celebrate the community. The festival will feature up to
12 artists whose work responds to the urban heat crisis. These works may include
shade and cooling structures that create street-scale microclimates; installations that
promote the protective beauty, comfort, and cooling power of hats and parasols; and
other participatory arts experiences that provoke dialogue about rising temperatures
and sustainable heat mitigation tactics. These installations will debut at the one-day
¡Sombra! festival but installations will remain on display for a year.

Financial Impact
The grant may not be used to fund 100 percent of project costs. The Phoenix Office of
Arts and Culture FY 2023-28 percent-for-art Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will
be used to offset costs not included in the grant funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.

Page 144



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
John Deere Replacement Parts and Repair Services - IFB 18-051 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-49562)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 147559
with Arizona Machinery LLC by extending the contract term through Oct. 30, 2023; and
to add $25,000 in spending authority, for a new aggregate contract value not to exceed
$925,000. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item.

Summary
This contract provides the Parks and Recreation Department with labor, materials, and
supplies to maintain and repair John Deere equipment to ensure the safe and efficient
operation of equipment used at various City park locations. The six-month extension
will permit time to seek another five-year agreement, while still allowing the
department's end-users to have product selections and the best overall pricing
discounts without an interruption in service.

Contract Term
The current contract term is for five years, effective on May 19, 2018, and set to expire
on April 30, 2023. Upon approval, the contract will be extended through Oct. 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $925,000. The additional funding
of $25,000 is available in the Parks and Recreation Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· John Deere Replacement Parts and Repair Services-Contract 147559 (Ordinance S
-44589) on May 19, 2018.
· John Deere Replacement Parts and Repair Services-Contract 147559 (Ordinance S
-46874) on Aug. 26, 2020.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.


Page 145



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Small Business Community Platform Contract - Request to Amend Contract with
CO+HOOTS LLC (Ordinance S-49533)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend a contract with
CO+HOOTS LLC to continue PHXbizConnect, a technology-driven Small Business
Community Platform, to support small businesses impacted by and recovering from
the COVID-19 pandemic. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding
will not exceed $280,000 and is available through the City’s allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City's Small Business Workforce Program category.

Summary
In May 2020, City Council approved $100,000 in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds to
invest in a small business program to assist Phoenix businesses with pandemic
recovery efforts. On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized a six-month contract with
CO+HOOTS LLC to initiate this program.

The Community and Economic Development Department and CO+HOOTS LLC
launched PHXbizConnect by HUUB in March 2021. PHXbizConnect is a social media
platform where business owners connect, ask questions, share successes, and find
solutions to business-related issues. The platform is available in both English and
Spanish, streamlines support for small businesses in one central, virtual location, and
helps boost the resilience of Phoenix small businesses. Businesses do not pay to
participate in PHXbizConnect.

In July 2021, City Council authorized a one-year $295,000 contract extension that
included a free technical assistance consulting program to provide one-on-one
consulting from business advisors. In May 2022, City Council authorized an additional
one-year $265,500 contract extension. As of January 2023, more than 770 Phoenix
business owners are registered PHXbizConnect members. Eighty-three percent of
members have fewer than 10 employees, and many are restaurants, retail shops and
professional services providers. The platform also reaches under-represented
communities, as 52 percent of members identify as woman-owned and 45 percent
identify as People of Color.


Page 146


Procurement Information
CO+HOOTS LLC was selected through the alternative competition process based on
its experience creating a similar program for the City of Mesa.

Contract Term
If approved, the proposed extension would begin in July 2023 with a term of one year.

Financial Impact
Funding to extend the Small Business Community Platform via CO+HOOTS LLC for
one year will not exceed $280,000. If this extension is approved, the aggregate value
of this contract will not exceed $940,500. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Funding is available through the City’s allocation of ARPA funds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
At the May 5, 2020 City Council Policy meeting, City Council allocated ARPA funding
to create a tool that would provide small businesses with expertise on key business
topics, guidelines to assist with business recovery and on-demand solutions during
COVID. On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized staff to enter in a contract with
CO+HOOTS LLC. City Council authorized subsequent contract extensions on May 25
and July 1, 2022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 147



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Affordable Connectivity Program Outreach Services Contract Award and
Citywide Wireless Network Project Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment
(Ordinance S-49560)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to contract with Common
Sense Media to provide Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) outreach services and
amend Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 154496 with Phoenix Union High School
District, its participating public elementary feeder schools and Maricopa County
Community Colleges District, to reallocate $1 million from the Phoenix Digital
Education Connection Canopy (PHX DECC) project to ACP outreach services. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to receive, and the City Controller to disburse,
all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding was
available through the City’s allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding
received from the federal government and was under the Citywide Wireless Network
Project and Partnership with Phoenix Union program.

Summary
Through multiple actions, the City Council has committed resources to bridging the
digital divide for Phoenix residents. In 2020, work began on the Phoenix Digital
Education Connection Canopy (PHX DECC) to provide home internet access to
students in the Phoenix Union High School District and its feeder elementary school
districts. Evaluation of the Proof of Concept area is currently underway to determine
best practices for expansion.

The federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) has been identified as a
companion tool for bridging the digital divide for eligible Phoenix residents in areas
with broadband service but who lack the financial resources to secure internet service.
The ACP provides eligible residents with a monthly $30 discount for internet service
with any participating broadband provider and a one-time $100 discount for a laptop or
computer. Eligible residents have household incomes at or below 200 percent of the
Federal Poverty Line or participation in any of the following programs: Federal Public
Housing Assistance; Free and Reduced-Price School Meal Programs; Medicaid; Pell
Grant; Social Security Income; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; or Veterans
Pension and Survivors Benefit. Phoenix is estimated to have nearly 200,000
households that are eligible for but not participating in ACP.

Page 148


Common Sense Media is dedicated to helping children and youth thrive in an ever-
evolving world of media and technology. In 2022, this nonprofit launched a 12-week
advertising campaign to raise awareness about the ACP benefits in Maricopa County,
which contributed to more than 50,000 new enrollments in Arizona. Common Sense
Media was selected through a Sole Source Determination due to its unique
qualifications as the only entity to have performed ACP outreach services in Phoenix
and have the necessary infrastructure to continue this important work. If approved, the
City will contract with Common Sense Media to implement an ACP outreach program
to include:

· Conducting a bilingual awareness campaign through traditional and social media
outlets;
· Organizing and staffing outreach events and application labs;
· Assisting Phoenix residents submitting an ACP application;
· Staffing a 24-hour/7-day call center to assist individuals completing their own
applications;
· Collaborating with City-approved community-based organizations to leverage their
connections to eligible Phoenix residents; and
· Report outcomes as required.

Earlier this year, City Council authorized contracting with up to 20 community and
education-based organizations as outreach partners to connect their networks to ACP
information and application assistance. As part of this overall effort, staff will be
working to execute these contracts in the coming months.

The City's IGA with the PHX DECC partners will be amended to reduce the City's
commitment by $1 million to fund these ACP outreach services. Through the
reallocation of these funds, more Phoenix residents will be connected with internet
service more quickly while PHX DECC infrastructure is constructed to serve residents
in those areas of the community that do not have reliable broadband service.

Contract Term
If approved, the two-year contract will begin in May 2023 and end in April 2025.

Financial Impact
Total funding for this contract will not exceed $1 million. There is no impact to the
General Fund as this funding was available through the City's allocation of ARPA
funds.



Page 149


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
2021, June 7, 2022, and July 1, 2022. On Feb. 15, 2023, City Council authorized staff
to apply for the FCC ACP Outreach Grant and implement an outreach plan if awarded.

Location
Council Districts: Citywide

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 150



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Temporary Event Staffing Services Contract - RFQu QVL PCC 22-001 Request for
Award (Ordinance S-49544)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Legacy Professional Solutions, Marathon Staffing Group, and S4 Global Solutions to
provide Temporary Event Staffing Services for the Phoenix Convention Center
Department (PCCD). Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $1,300,000.

Summary
This contract will provide qualified vendors to supply temporary labor to support the
Phoenix Convention Center, Symphony Hall, Orpheum Theater and other venues
managed by the PCCD. Temporary labor services include short-term staffing needs to
provide supplemental labor to support meetings and events, banquets, conventions,
theater performances, concerts, and mega-events. Offeror shall provide all requested
laborers and supervisors to support various functions and events.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).

Four offers were submitted and three were deemed to be responsive and responsible.
An evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following
minimum qualifications:

· Minimum qualification 1: Most responsive and responsible Offeror(s)who are
regularly established in the service.
· Minimum qualification 2: Technical capability of Offeror(s) to accomplish the scope
of work required in the Solicitation.
· Minimum qualification 3: Demonstrated availability of the necessary manpower
(both supervisory and operational personnel).
· Minimum qualification 4: Vendor history of complaints or termination convenience or
case.




Page 151

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following Offerors:

· Legacy Professional Solutions
· Marathon Staffing Group
· S4 Global Solutions

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about May 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $1,300,000.

Funding is available in the PCCD operating budget.

Location
Phoenix Convention Center, 100 N. 3rd St.
Orpheum Theatre, 203 W. Adams St.
Symphony Hall, 75 W. 2nd St.

Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.




Page 152



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Extend Contract with Peraton, Inc. and Allow Additional Expenditures for Fire
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Upgrade Project (Ordinance S-49563)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures, extend Contract 152571, and extend the original Payment Ordinance S-
46540 with Peraton, Inc. for the Fire Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Upgrade Project.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $165,617.

Summary
On April 15, 2020, City Council approved the Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) to enter
into a contract with Peraton, Inc. (formerly Northrop Grumman) for the Fire Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) Upgrade Project. PFD currently relies on a CAD system that
provides regional dispatch management for 29 jurisdictions and two private ambulance
companies. To keep pace with the growing demand for services, PFD must upgrade
the CAD system in order to maintain service levels and meet response time standards
established by the National Fire Protection Association.

The current Fire CAD Upgrade Project contract is scheduled to expire on May 31,
2025. Due to delays with the project implementation, the contract period of service will
need to be extended through Aug. 16, 2028. The additional funding is for the vendor to
perform the full end-user training program for Fire dispatchers. This will allow for
operational staffing to continue to be filled to an appropriate level while the dispatchers
are training on the new CAD system.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement with Peraton, began on or about June 1, 2020, through
May 31, 2025. Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Aug. 16,
2028.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of the $165,617 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $32,852,829. Funds are available in the Fire Department's
budget.



Page 153

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by the City Council on April 15, 2020.

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




Page 154



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
One-Time Purchase to Replace Ambulance Chassis (Ordinance S-49545)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Redsky Fire Apparatus LLC to provide two rescue ambulance chassis for the Public
Works department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $183,184.

Summary
This contract will provide two new chassis for two aging rescue ambulance chassis
that belong to the Phoenix Fire Department. The rescue ambulances are units that
provide transportation to residents and visitors of the city, who are in critical condition,
to local hospitals. Replacing the aging chassis is imperative, being they support the
medical transport, and replacing the chassis will also reduce downtime and
maintenance costs associated with the aging equipment.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition due to obtaining the original equipment
manufacturer chassis and the unique and specific build requirements.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about after Council approval on April 5, 2023, for the one-
time purchase of two ambulance chassis.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $183,184.

Funding is available in the Fire Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and Deputy City Manager
Mario Paniagua, and the Fire and Public Works departments.




Page 155



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Griffeye Analyzer Toolset Contract - EXC 23-022 - Request for Award (Ordinance
S-49534)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Griffeye Inc., to provide the Griffeye Analyzer Toolset for the City of Phoenix Police
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $104,250.

Summary
This contract will provide Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) investigators and
forensic examiners with a seamless way to import all types of image formats for
immediate analysis. The purchase of the licenses for the Griffeye Analyze Toolset,
which includes CS Operations Server, CS Operations Client, DI Pro, and Lace Carver,
will allow the Family Investigations Bureau to continue to use this software. This
continuation will allow for seamless transition between the workload of investigators
and forensic examiners. Additionally, various features built into the Griffeye Analyze
Toolset aim at reducing investigators and forensic examiners exposure to child sex
abuse material, thus fostering mental health wellness.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances / Without Competition. The Griffeye Analyze Toolset, which
includes CS Operations Server, CS Operations Client, DI Pro, and Lace Carver, is
software proprietary to Griffeye. The Griffeye Analyze Toolset is only available for
purchase through Griffeye Inc. As a result, there are no alternative resellers or
distributors that can provide this software. The Griffeye Analyzer Toolset reduces the
time required to preliminarily review files on electronic devices, thereby helping Police
staff to build a more effective case against accused child sexual abuse offenders.
Without this software, cases will be delayed and staff will have to rely on the manual
categorization process. The inability to access this software will result in unnecessary
exposure to child sexual abuse content for ICAC investigators and forensic examiners.


Page 156


Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about March 22, 2023, for a five-year term, with no
options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $104,250 for the five-year aggregate
term.

Funding is available in the City of Phoenix Police Department's budget.

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




Page 157



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Safran Helicopter Engines USA, Inc., Parts and Services - RFA 18-138 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-49548)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 150597 with Safran Helicopter Engines USA, Inc.
(Safran) for the purchase of aircraft parts and services for the Police Department Air
Support Unit's helicopters. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $1,430,000.

Summary
This contract will provide helicopter parts and services in support of the Police
Department's Air Support Unit. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates
routine maintenance and performance of overhauls to ensure safe operation of the
aircraft fleet. Once an aircraft component reaches its service life limit or time between
overhaul, the aircraft is restricted from flying until the appropriate maintenance is
accomplished. Therefore, repairs must be completed in a timely manner. Safran
Helicopter Engines USA, Inc. is the only FAA authorized repairer for the City's hydro-
mechanical unit and for other helicopter parts. The additional funds will allow for the
continued purchase of critical parts and services throughout the remainder of the
contract term.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on July 2, 2024.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $1,430,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $5,430,000. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Safran Helicopter Engines USA, Inc., Parts and Services - Contract 150597 -
Ordinance S-45920 on July 3, 2019;




Page 158

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




Page 159



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM MARCH 22, 2023) - Water Line Replacement - Job Order
Contracting Services Amendment - 4108JOC175 (Ordinance S-49518)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 150254 with Talis Construction Corporation, Agreement 150255 with WaCo
Contracting, and Agreement 150256 with J Wise Corp. to provide additional Job Order
Contracting Services for the Water Line Replacement program. 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 additional fee for services included in the
amendments will not exceed $18 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to continue to provide Job Order Contracting (JOC)
services on an as-needed basis to support the Water Line Replacement program.

The amendments are necessary as the contract will exhaust the initial contract funding
capacity within the first three years of the agreements' term. The amendments will
provide additional funding that is necessary due to the continuous need for the Water
Line Replacement program.

Contract Term
The term of the agreements will remain the same. 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 initial agreements for the JOC services were executed for a fee not to exceed
$12 million each, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
· The amendments will increase the agreements by an additional $6 million each, for
a new total amount not to exceed $18 million each, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.




Page 160

Funding for the amendments is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Job Order Contracting Services Agreement 150254 Talis Construction Corporation,
150255 WaCo Contracting, and 150256 J Wise Corp. (Ordinance S-45802) on June
19, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 161
Page 162



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
DV Parcel B Owner, LLC, dba Mack Industries, License for Road Construction at
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (Ordinance S-49555)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a perpetual
license agreement with DV Parcel B Owner, LLC (dba Mack Industries) to construct a
road on vacant property at Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT).

Summary
Mack Industries and its affiliates own former state trust land north of DVT where they
are constructing an industrial warehouse complex. The property owned by Mack
Industries is bisected by a corridor of DVT land that is intended for the construction of
a road to connect Airport Drive, which is maintained by DVT, with East Pinnacle Peak
Road to the north. Mack Industries is requesting to construct and maintain the road at
its expense to provide access to its tenants. The road will be designed to conform to
constructing and maintaining the road, the City will provide the land for the road at no
charge under a perpetual license agreement. The road will be available for public use,
which includes DVT tenants.

Contract Term
The term will include no expiration date, but the license can be cancelled by either
party with notice.

Financial Impact
There is no rent associated with this license agreement.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee
recommended approval of the item on March 2, 2023 by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval of this item on March 16,
2023 by a vote of 6-0

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


Page 163


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.




Page 164



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Vehicle Suspension, Steering, and Alignment Services - IFB 23-FSD-044 -
Requirements Contract (Ordinance S-49535)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
contracts with Betts Truck Parts & Service and RWC International, LTD for vehicle
suspension, steering, and alignment services on heavy-duty vehicles. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This item will
have a value of $1,825,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining a fleet of approximately
7,800 vehicles with approximately 4,000 heavy-duty models. Public Works will use the
services on these contracts to repair heavy-duty vehicles back to Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) standards. The vendors will be responsible for performing repairs
related to steering, suspension, and alignment on heavy-duty, refuse, and fire
apparatus class 8 vehicles.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 23-FSD-044 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Two offers were received for Groups I and II, and one offer was
received for Group III. The offers were evaluated based on price, responsiveness to all
specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide the required
services.

Group I - Suspension and Steering Service
Betts Truck Parts & Service: $118.50/Hour
RWC International, LTD: $135/Hour

Group II - Menu Alignment at Vendor Facility
Betts Truck Parts & Service: $588.55/group total
RWC International, LTD: $800/group total

Group III - Menu Alignment at City Facility
RWC International, LTD: $950/group total



Page 165

Contract Term
The initial three-year contract term will begin on or about May 1, 2023, with two options
to extend in up to one-year increments for a total contract term of five years.

Financial Impact
The contracts will have an estimated annual expenditure of $365,000, with a total
value of $1,825,000 over the life of the contracts.

Funds are available in the Public Works Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.




Page 166



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Purchase of Pierce Manufacturing Parts - RFA 24-FSD-005 Requirements
Contract (Ordinance S-49536)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Hughes Fire Equipment, Inc. to supply Pierce Manufacturing parts and accessories on
an as-needed basis in a contract amount not to exceed $2,250,000. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Public Works Department maintains 49 units of Pierce Manufacturing equipment
for the Fire Department. These units are used to assist with front-line rescues and
emergencies for the health and safety of the community. This contract will help to
provide required parts and accessories that can only be distributed from Pierce
Manufacturing by Hughes Fire Equipment for the maintenance and repairs of
equipment. These parts are critical for the maintenance and repairs of these units and
for decreasing downtime of emergency response equipment that is essential in
providing emergency services to the community.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a Determination Memo citing that there is only one source for these
essential parts and accessories. Hughes Fire Equipment is the only authorized
distributor of Pierce Manufacturing parts and accessories for the State of Arizona.

Contract Term
The initial three-year term of this contract will begin on July 1, 2023 with two option
years in increments of up to one year, for a total contract option term of five years.

Financial Impact
This contract will have an estimated annual expenditure of $450,000, with a not to
exceed value of $2,250,000.

Funds are available in the Public Works Department's budget.




Page 167

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.




Page 168



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Trane Energy Management Control Systems Services - Requirements Contract
(Ordinance S-49551)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Trane US, Inc., for the programming, maintenance, and repair of Trane Energy
Management Control Systems (EMCS) on an as-needed basis. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This total value of
the agreement will not exceed $2,080,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the control systems that
regulate the temperatures and energy consumption in City-owned buildings. Trane
EMCS is currently installed in multiple City buildings to maintain temperature controls
in the facilities. This agreement will allow necessary maintenance and repairs on these
systems, which is necessary for proper operation and to maintain temperatures in
these public facilities.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a determination memo citing that Trane US, Inc. is the sole source
provider for parts and service for Trane EMCS.

Contract Term
The initial three-year term of the agreement will begin on or about May 1, 2023. The
agreement will include two one-year options to extend the term, for a total agreement
term of up to five years if all options are exercised.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreement, including all option years is $2,080,000,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $416,000.
Funds are available in the Public Works Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.


Page 169



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
"For Official Use Only" Wording Exemption for Unmarked City Vehicles
(Resolution 22108)

Request the Phoenix City Council to adopt a resolution to exempt certain City vehicles
from displaying the wording "For Official Use Only" as referenced under Arizona
Revised Statues (A.R.S.) sections 38-538, 38-538.01 and 38-358.03, for the period of
July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024.

Summary
This resolution exempts certain vehicles owned or leased by the City of Phoenix,
including vehicles in the Police, Fire, Human Services, and Aviation departments.
A.R.S. section 38-538.03 stipulates that the governing body may grant such an
exemption for a period of time not to exceed one year. These vehicles are used to
conduct social service programs, investigations, or other confidential activities. The
confidential list required by statute is available to City Council members upon request.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.




Page 170



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Traffic Signal Mounting Brackets Contract - IFB 63-2323 Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49531)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
General Traffic Equipment Corp. to provide traffic signal mounting brackets for the
Street Transportation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$668,635.

Summary
This contract will allow the Street Transportation Department's Traffic Signal Shop to
purchase mounting arm brackets for side mount signal heads and for pedestrian signal
heads to maintain the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians at
intersections throughout the City's infrastructure. The mounting brackets are needed to
maintain existing traffic signals and to support the expansion of City roadways.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Four vendors submitted bids deemed to be responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based
on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following selected bidder:

1. General Traffic Equipment Corp.: $121,570
2. Econolite Control Products Inc.: $174,435
3. Clark Transportation Solutions: $250,445
4. Southlands Engineering LLC: $476,188.30

Selected Bidder
General Traffic Equipment Corp.: $121,570

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about March 22, 2023, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.


Page 171


Financial Impact
The total contract value will not exceed $668,635. Funding is available in the Street
Transportation Department's operating budget.

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




Page 172



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
AZ State Match Advantage for Rural Transportation Fund Program Call for
Projects Federal Fiscal Year 2022-23 (Ordinance S-49547)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for,
accept, disburse and if awarded, enter into agreements for Fiscal Year 2022-23
transportation funding through the Arizona Department of Transportation for AZ State
Match Advantage for Rural Transportation Fund Program. Further request an
exemption from the indemnification prohibition set forth in the Phoenix City Code
section 42-18 for a governmental entity pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-20.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller
to disburse, all funds related to this item. The total grant funds applied for will not
exceed $3.4 million.

Summary
Numerous new federal discretionary grant programs were created with the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL). The AZ State Match Advantage for Rural Transportation (AZ
SMART) Fund Program was established by the Arizona State Legislature in 2022 to
assist eligible cities, towns, counties, and the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) competing for federal discretionary surface transportation grants. The funds
are administered through ADOT and all awards must be approved by the Arizona State
Board. Although the program reads Rural in the title, the City has confirmed that it is
eligible for this funding opportunity under the City or towns greater than 10,000 in
population. In addition, the program allows previously awarded discretionary grants
under the BIL to apply as long as the federal grant agreement has not been executed.
Recently, the AZ SMART program received $50 million in state shared revenue for
Fiscal Year 2022-23. The City is applying for the funding specific to cities and towns
with a population of 10,000 persons or more, which accounts for $10 million of the $50
million in funding.

The City of Phoenix was recently awarded $25 million through the Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2021-22 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) 2022 cycle to design and build a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Rio
Salado: Rio Reimagined 3rd Street Bike/Pedestrian Bridge. The City committed to a
local match of $9,573,861 to the total project cost estimated at $34,573,861. Under the
AZ SMART Fund Program, the City could request additional state-shared revenue


Page 173

funds or non-federal funds to supplement the local match already committed to this
project.

The Street Transportation Department submitted an application on Feb. 24, 2023,
requesting for up to $3.4 million under the AZ SMART Fund Program.

Financial Impact
If the City were to be awarded the amount requested up to $3.4 million, it would reduce
the amount of estimated local match already committed on this project from
$9,573,861 to no less than $6,173,861. Committed local funds are available in the
Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement Program.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved application and acceptance of FFY 2021-22 RAISE grant
funds on March 23, 2022.

Location
Council Districts: 7 and 8

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




Page 174



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Salt River Project Distribution Design and Construction Contracts for
Installation of Traffic Signal Improvements at 51st Avenue and Indian School
Road, and 71st Avenue and Thomas Road - ST89340584 (Ordinance S-49554)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into two Distribution
Design and Construction Contracts with Salt River Project for the design and
construction of electrical facilities at 51st Avenue and Indian School Road, and 71st
Avenue and Thomas Road for City of Phoenix Project ST89340584. Further request to
grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.
Additionally request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
these items. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $27,004.02.

Summary
The City is constructing traffic signal improvements at the intersections of 51st Avenue
and Indian School Road, and 71st Avenue and Thomas Road, which will require the
design and construction of new electrical facilities at both locations. These contracts
represent the costs for Salt River Project's design and construction to provide power
services to the new traffic signals.

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about April 6, 2023, and will end in one year.

Financial Impact
Funding in the amount of $27,004.02 is available in the Street Transportation
Department's Capital Improvement Program budget.

Location
51st Avenue and Indian School Road, and 71st Avenue and Thomas Road.
Council Districts: 4, 5, 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department, and the City Engineer.


Page 175



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Suns Non-Standard Crosswalk Markings

Request City Council consideration to approve a request from the Phoenix Suns to
temporarily install non-standard crosswalk markings at four intersections for the
National Basketball Association (NBA) playoffs, in accordance with the City's existing
Non-Standard Crosswalk Marking Program. There will be no financial impact to the

Summary
The Phoenix Suns submitted a request to install up to 15 temporary non-standard
crosswalks at four intersections near the Footprint Center in downtown Phoenix by
April 15, 2023, to coincide with the first round of the NBA playoffs. The proposed
design would include the Phoenix Suns colors of purple and orange (Attachment A),
and the proposed locations would be installed for the duration of the NBA playoffs.

On June 19, 2019, City Council adopted Ordinance S-45794, allowing the Street
Transportation Department to implement the Non-Standard Crosswalk Marking
Program to allow the consideration of non-standard crosswalk intersection requests.
The program provides requirements for non-standard crosswalk design, installation
and ongoing maintenance as to not compromise the safety of pedestrian crossings or
to place additional financial burden on the City. The program is limited to existing
crosswalks where a vehicle is already required to stop due to a traffic signal, HAWK
signal or stop sign. The Non-Standard Crosswalk Marking Program is the only
exception to standard traffic markings permitted on City streets, and each proposed
location requires the approval of the City Council.

The Non-Standard Crosswalk Marking Program is intended for the installation of non-
standard crosswalk markings, which are paid for and maintained by the requestor. For
permanent non-standard crosswalk markings, the program requires the design
materials to consist of preformed thermoplastic to ensure longevity and must be
installed by the Street Transportation Department. However, since this request is for
temporary markings, the City will allow these markings to be painted directly onto the
asphalt, and the Phoenix Suns will be responsible for their installation and also their
removal through a microseal restorative treatment. The design will adhere to the
program requirements that the non-standard markings maintain a three-inch gap from


Page 176

the existing standard crosswalk markings and can be solid colors or patterns of color.
The Street Transportation Department will provide oversight to ensure the installation
adheres to the design requirements stated in the Non-Standard Crosswalk Marking
Program and that the installation and removal do not damage the existing crosswalk
markings or pavement.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix. All materials, installation and
removal costs will be the sole responsibility of the Phoenix Suns.

Location
Crosswalks along Jefferson Street at Central Avenue, 1st Street, 2nd Street and 3rd
Street.
Council Districts: 7 and 8

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




Page 177
ATTACHMENT A




Page 178



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Safety, Environmental and Technical Training Contract - RFP 2223-WST-342 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-49553)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
BTS AZ, LLC, ETC Compliance Solutions LLC, Innovations in Training Inc., P3 Safety
Solutions, LLC, Safety Compliance Services, Inc., Santa Cruz Solutions, LLC., and
MentorSource Training Corporation dba Workplace Safety Specialists to provide
Safety, Environmental and Technical Training for the Water Services Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the seven contracts will not exceed $6,000,000.

Summary
The Agreements will provide Water Services with the ability to continue the
development of its comprehensive employee trainings and expand the program to
include the development of three new training program areas: Water Industry
Operations, Water Industry Technical and Professional Development.

Procurement Information
The recommendations were made using a Request for Proposal procurement process
in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Nine vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible point total of 1000.

Experience, Capacity and Capability (0-500 points)
Method of Approach (0-400 points)
Cost of Services (0-100 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor(s):

· BTS AZ, LLC (806.87 points)
· ETC Compliance Solutions, LLC (675.37 points)
· Innovations in Training Inc. (587.50 points)


Page 179

· P3 Safety Solutions, LLC (690.35 points)
· Safety Compliance Services Inc. (562.46 points)
· Santa Cruz Solutions, LLC (772.50 points)
· MentorSource Training Corporation dba Workplace Safety Specialists (684.75
points)

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about April 30, 2023, for a five-year term with no option
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $6,000,000.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department operating budget.

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




Page 180



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Element Laboratory Information Management System Contract - RFA 2223-WPC-
578 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-49559)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Promium, LLC to provide the Element Laboratory Information Management System
for the Water Services Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$487,944.

Summary
This contract will provide a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)
system that will replace the current legacy system.The legacy system runs on older
technology and is no longer sold or supported by the manufacturer. The Promium
Element LIMS product is designed specifically for environmental lab information
management and will support all of the lab activities with functional out of the box
capabilities. The system is critical to manage the City's federal and state permitting
requirements as well as the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZDES)
permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and multiple
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances without Competition, as there exists a lack of available
qualified products, which makes a competitive selection process impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about April 1, 2023, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.




Page 181

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $487,944 for the five-year aggregate
term.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating budget.

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




Page 182



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Municipal
Water Providers to Support a Regional Advanced Water Purification Facility
Study (Ordinance S-49561)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Memorandum
of Understanding (“MOU”) with other Arizona municipal water providers to support a
regional advanced water purification facility study. There is no financial obligation
associated with the MOU other than staff time.

Summary
The City of Phoenix has an established history of far-sighted water resource
management and planning. The result of that foresight is an abundant and resilient
water portfolio that has been the basis of the extraordinary growth and economic
development that the City has enjoyed over the past 100 years.

Water resource management, including support and compliance with Arizona’s
innovative groundwater laws, has led to a reduction of the City’s gallons per capita per
day water consumption rate and to its ability to serve a significantly greater population
today with less water than it used thirty years ago. Advanced water planning and the
investment in water resources allows the City to rely on a resilient portfolio of water
resources, including SRP water, Central Arizona Project water, leased Indian water,
water captured by Modified Roosevelt Dam, and water stored underground.

Nonetheless, the past 20 years of drought or aridification on the Colorado River
system has led to stresses on the City’s water supplies, most notably the Colorado
River water available through the Central Arizona Project. Recognizing that it is time to
continue the City’s legacy of long-range water resource management and planning,
City staff recommends taking initial steps toward use of the most significant, reliable,
and unused water supplies readily available in the State-unused and uncommitted
wastewater. Water purification technology has now advanced to allow wastewater to
be treated for safe direct use.

The MOU would invite other Arizona municipal water providers to join with Phoenix in
taking steps toward developing a Regional Advanced Water Purification Facility
Financing Study and Project Plan, along with a cost-share agreement to share the


Page 183

costs of that study and plan. The participants would also explore potential governance
options for a regional facility and examine water management tools and arrangements
that could extend the benefits of a regional plant to the maximum extent possible
throughout the region and State. The MOU is a non-binding expression of intent
among the parties.

Contract Term
The MOU will become effective upon its execution by Phoenix and at least two other
municipal water providers. This MOU will terminate upon the execution of the cost
share agreement, the voluntary withdrawal from this MOU by Phoenix, or if fewer than
three parties remain as participants to the MOU.

Financial Impact
The MOU imposes no financial obligation on any party, other than staff time.

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




Page 184



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Estrella Crossing-Phases 1 & 2 Amended - PLAT 220054 - South of
Dobbins Road and East of 59th Avenue

Plat: 220054
Project: 19-722
Name of Plat: Estrella Crossing - Phases 1 & 2 Amended
Owner: Brookfield Holdings LLC, Starlight Homes Arizona LLC, Ashton Woods Arizona
LLC and City of Phoenix
Engineer: Robert A. Johnston, RLS
Request: A 433-Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: March 6, 2023
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 south of Dobbins Road and East of 59th Avenue
Council District: 8

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




Page 185



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Proximity 36th - PLAT 220069 - North of Wayland Drive and West of
36th Street

Plat: 220069
Project: 20-4112
Name of Plat: Proximity 36th
Owner: 36th & Southern, LLC
Engineer: James A. Loftis, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: March 9, 2023
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 north of Wayland Drive and west of 36th Street
Council District: 8

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




Page 186



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Approval of Warehouse and Threatened Building Grant - City Center Motel - 600
W. Van Buren St. (Ordinance S-49564)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into necessary
agreements and conveyances with Fabius Enterprise, LLC, related to a Historic
Preservation Warehouse and Threatened Building Grant of up $150,000 to assist with
rehabilitation of the historic City Center Motel at 600 W. Van Buren St. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The buildings at 600 W. Van Buren St. (main building) and 316 N. 6th Ave. (annex)
were constructed in 1959 as the City Center Motel. The main building is a modern
Googie-style concrete block structure designed with “space-age” features including a
long, angular, “rocket-like” porte cochere, and an extended sign with tall spires. The
two-story annex building is more utilitarian in design; it contributes to the historic
character of the property but is not individually significant.

The property is currently owned by Fabius Enterprise, LLC, who is seeking to construct
a new multi-story hotel on the site. Initially, both buildings were slated for demolition to
allow for the construction of the new hotel. However, as a result of an agreement
negotiated by the owner and Historic Preservation (HP) Commission, the majority of
the main building will be preserved and incorporated as part of the new hotel, while the
annex will be demolished. The owner also consented to establishing HP zoning over
the portion of the property that will be preserved. The City Council approved the HP
zoning overlay on Nov. 2, 2022.

Now that the property has received historic designation, the owner has submitted an
application requesting grant funds for rehabilitation. Fabius Enterprise, LLC, is seeking
funding assistance for the following eligible work items: preservation of the exterior
historic motel structure while building out the new hotel, preservation of historic
signage, preservation of the exterior awning and soffit, and repair of the foundation on
the historic building. The proposed work will include reversal of previous alterations to
help restore the historic integrity of the property. Work will be carried out per the
conceptual plans that have been provided, with construction drawings to be reviewed
and approved by HP staff. The total cost of the eligible work items, along with eligible


Page 187

architectural and engineering expenses, is estimated to be $490,000. The cost of the
entire project, including construction of the new hotel, is approximately $26.9 million. If
approved, the grant funds will be disbursed to the applicant on a reimbursement basis
as work is completed. The applicant will be required to provide evidence of a dollar-for-
dollar match.

Financial Impact
The requested amount is $150,000. In exchange for the grant funds, the City will
receive a 30-year conservation easement on the property. The easement will require
City review and approval of exterior alterations to the historic building and that the
building be insured and kept in good repair. Funding is available in the HP operating
budget, utilizing a portion of the funds allocated by the City Council for grants for
threatened buildings.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The HP Commission recommended approval of this item on Feb. 13, 2023, by a 6-0
vote.
· The Equity and Economic Development Subcommittee heard the item on March 22,
2023, and recommended approval of the Historic Preservation Commission
recommendation, by a 4-0 vote.

Location
600 W. Van Buren St.
Council District: 7

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




Page 188
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




600 W. Van Buren Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


February 6, 2023

Mr. Kevin Weight
Principal Planner
200 W. Washington St. 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Dear Mr. Weight,




I am submitting this grant application on behalf of Fabius Enterprise, LLC. We had intentions of
submitting a demolition request on the property but were met by downtown advocates who wanted to
stop the demolition and compel at least part of the existing structure into the design of our new hotel.

Our EV Hotel project aims to turn the 63-year-old historic preservation property known as City Center
Motel into a high-tech completely automated hotel. Our goal is to update the old into the new while
preserving some of its iconic look and historic place in downtown Phoenix.

Funding is needed for this project because it will allow for the historic look to remain as authentic as
possible to the property's original historic ambience and to preserve the history of the hotel and its
presence downtown. We are seeking additional funding to assist us in preserving Downtown Phoenix.

Bringing a new technology-focused modern destination hotel to the downtown community will have an
economic impact on the downtown community, providing travelers with high-tech comforts while
staying at the property. The property will have the curbside appeal that exudes the city’s economic
development yet concedes to preservationists and the communities' values for an historic appearance.

The project will preserve the historic presence in the downtown community, impact economic
development and provide for futuristic technological advancement while providing patrons with a
unique travel experience. We appreciate your consideration of our grant request as we further develop
our project with the goal of preserving an iconic structure and impacting the future of hospitability in
our downtown historic community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Nimesh Dinubhai




Page 189
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Historic Preservation Office
Warehouse & Threatened Building Application


In completing the application, please be as concise as possible, read all questions before answering to avoid
repetition and write legibly in pen or type. You may include continuation sheets if needed. All required
supplemental information must be included and be unbound.
I. APPLICANT COVER LETTER
Please include a cover letter from the property owner or authorized person submitting on behalf of the owner
summarizing the request for Historic Preservation (HP) grant funding. Briefly describe the overall project
purpose and the eligible work items. Indicate the total project budget, dollar amount for eligible work items, and
the total amount requested.
II. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION
Applicant: Fabius Enterprise, LLC
Legal Name of Property Owner: Nimesh Dinubhai
Mailing Address: 600 W. Van Buren Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-647-9777 Email Address: nims@webfresh.com
Property Address: 600 W. Van Buren Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Historic District (or name of individually-listed/eligible building): Downtown Code/ City Center Motel
Current Use of Property: Motel
Is Property Vacant? ☐ Yes ☐
■ No If Yes, Length of Time Vacant?
Date Current Owner Purchased Property: 2005
Historic Preservation Office Use Only:
Historic Status:
☐ Individually Designated ☐ Contributor to an Historic District
☐ Eligible / Not Currently Designated ☐ Non-contributor with Potential
☐ Designation in Progress ☐ Non-contributor without Potential

III. HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION
1. Historical/Architectural Significance. Briefly describe the historical and/or architectural
significance of your property, including the date of construction, architect/builder if known,
construction method, original use of property, and subsequent uses over the years.
The City Center Motel was designed by William D. Knight and built in 1959. In 2016 the iconic Googie style roadside
lodging City Center Motel opted in to the Travelodge franchise and the yellow sign letters were removed. They were
salvaged by the Arizona Vintage Sign Coalition and are in safe storage should they ever need to be restored in the
future. In 2022, it became the City Center Downtown. The property renders a classic mid-century architecture and
includes contemporary architecture with modernist influences

The City Center Motel is significant under Criterion A for its association with tourism related development during the
mid-century era. Its importance is reflected by its location on Van Buren Street (U.S. Highway 60, 70, 80 and 89),
which was the main transportation corridor through Phoenix prior to the construction of Interstate 10. Unlike earlier
hotels, such as the San Carlos and Westward Ho, the City Center Motel catered to visitors in automobiles, reflecting
the growing influence of the car in postwar society. City Center Motel utilizes futuristic, striking shapes and signage to
attract the attention of passing drivers. Its lobby and porte cochere make a bold architectural statement while the
guest room wings are fairly simple functional buildings that are little more than decorated boxes. It represents a rare
property type, as one of just a handful of motels
from the 1950s still surviving in Phoenix.




For more information or for a copy of this publication in an alternate format, contact Planning & Development at
(602) 262-7811 voice / (602) 534-5500 TTY.
S:\Historic Preservation\Handouts & Forms\Financial Incentives\WTB\WTB Application TRT/DOC/00175
WEB\pdd_hp_pdf_00175.pdf Rev. 9/22

Page 190
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Application – Page 2 of 6 TRT/DOC/00175


2. Property Description. Briefly describe the primary exterior features of your property, including
information on style and materials of exterior siding/finishes, roof, doors/windows, porches, and
any decorative or unique features of the property. For these features, indicate whether they are
original or altered/replaced, and if they were altered/replaced when this occurred (if known).


The property is also significant under Criterion C as a rare remaining local example of Googie-style roadside
architecture. This style was once prevalent in Phoenix, with such classic examples as the two Helsing's coffee shops
on Central Avenue at Osborn Road and Camelback Road and the first McDonald's "Golden Arches" prototype
drive-in in America on Central Avenue just south of Indian School Road. Typical of 1950s roadside architecture, the
City Center Motel utilizes futuristic, striking shapes and signage to attract the attention of passing drivers. Its lobby
and porte cochere make a bold architectural statement while the guest room wings are fairly simple functional
buildings that are little more than decorated boxes.




3. Historic Property Inventory Form. Attach a copy of the Historic Property Inventory Form (if
available from the City of Phoenix HP Office) for your property.
4. Photographs. Attach color photographs showing overall site, street views, all exterior facades
and close-up views of original/decorative features, and areas where work is to be performed.
Include interiors if the request includes interior work. Label views (i.e., north façade, east wood
casement window).
5. Property Condition. Describe the overall condition of the property, providing descriptive
information on areas that are deficient or deteriorated. If an architectural or structural
assessment has been performed, please attach. All requests for structural work need to include a
structural assessment.




6. Previous Rehabilitation Work. Briefly describe previous rehabilitation work you have already
completed on your property as well as work that you are aware of that was conducted by previous
owners. List the major work items and the year work was done.




Page 191
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Application – Page 3 of 6 TRT/DOC/00175


IV. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Purpose. Describe the primary purpose and objectives for the proposed project for which
HP grant funds would be expended, and the proposed use of the building. Will the property be
occupied at the end of the project, and if so, with what use?


The purpose it keep the historical part of the building live. The property will be occupied by adding more amenities.




2. Contribution to Community Goals. Describe how the project contributes to community values,
city economic development goals, and/or (where applicable) to the city downtown vision. If you
have coordinated with neighborhood or community associations (highly encouraged), please
describe and attach documentation (letters of support).


As it was build in 1959 will keep the same structure of the building and revitalize where its need it.




3. Project Plan. Describe how the proposed project fits into an overall plan to rehabilitate the
building.


It will be part of the new building connection.




4. Project Work Scope, Budget and Time Schedule.
a.) Cost estimates. Cost estimates for all work items must be provided by licensed contractors, a
construction estimator or other qualified individuals. Please attach actual estimates to the application.
Ordinarily, at least two cost estimates are required for each work item, but exceptions may be
allowed. The City HP Office solely determines if the estimates are adequate. Applicant does not
need to pick the lower bid but must justify why the higher bid is chosen (where applicable).
b.) Itemized budget. Include an itemized project list and budget for entire proposed project (including
items not to be funded with Historic Preservation grant funds) using the form in Appendix A. The
applicant must demonstrate that the project items he/she is funding independently are equal or
greater in dollar amount than those items in the grant request.




Page 192
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Application – Page 4 of 6 TRT/DOC/00175


EXAMPLE OF ITEMIZED BUDGET FOR A PROJECT:
Eligible Project Construction Items:
Repoint brick walls on east and south facades $ 8,000.00
Repair/replace16 wood-frame double-hung windows $ 12,000.00
Structural roof truss repairs $ 10,000.00
New built-up foam roof $ 10,000.00

Eligible Architectural/Structural Expenses:
Structural analysis of roof trusses $ 3,000.00
(Architectural studies/drawings must relate directly to grant-
eligible work items only – cannot include work related to site
plans, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, tenant improvements,
etc. Can include pre-agreement expenses within 6 months of
application.)
A. Total Eligible Expenses $ 43,000.00
Architectural/Structural expenses (limited to no more than 10% of request):
Amount $ 3,000.00 Percentage of Total Request 7.0%

Ineligible Construction Work to be Funded by Other Sources:
Plumbing upgrades $ 10,000.00
Repair and refinish wood floors $ 15,000.00
Bring two bathrooms up to ADA compliance $ 10,000.00
Electrical rewiring $ 15,000.00
Installation of elevator to meet building code $ 12,000.00

B. Total Ineligible Work Items: $ 62,000.00

C. Total Project Cost (A + B) $ 105,000.00

D. Percent Overmatch (must be at least 1.0) (Divide B / A) 1.44%
B: $62,000.00 / A: $43,000.00 = 1.44%
c.) Descriptions of work items. Include narrative descriptions for all itemized work items proposed for
Historic Preservation grant funding. Attach on a separate sheet using Appendix B. If contractor
bids/cost estimates included detailed descriptions, this item may not be necessary.
Ex. of narrative description for one work item:
Repair 16 wood-frame double-hung windows. Project will replace two windows beyond repair in-
kind to match existing. Fourteen windows need frame repair (new ledger, header and/or sill), sash
repairs/replacement, and some new glass panes to replace missing and broken glass. Refer to
attached window-by-window assessment and itemization from contractor.
d.) Detailed time schedule and work sequence. Please attach a detailed time schedule for all
proposed work items related to the full completion of this project – inside and out. This should include
items funded and not funded by the grant program. Please list out work items sequentially in the
order that they will be performed with approximate start and end dates for each work item. The time
schedule should address architectural/engineering work; permit schedule; beginning of construction
work; performance of all work items; and project completion.
5. Project Financial Information.
Provide information regarding financial capability of owner to complete the project. Such information
should include: Proforma profit/loss statements for the business proposed, bank statements or other
evidence that owner can obtain a loan from a bank, financial or lending institution to complete the project.
If the project is proposing to use federal tax credits, grants, or other financial incentives, please provide
evidence and information on the contribution of these sources and the status of these applications.



Page 193
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Application – Page 5 of 6 TRT/DOC/00175


6. Drawings/Building Assessments. Please attach:
a.) Scaled site plan showing location of main buildings, all outbuildings, existing & proposed fences and
walls, and property lines. (This can be hand drawn or professionally drawn) If additions, demolitions
or other site changes are proposed, please indicate on site plan. Indicate all areas of proposed work
on the site plan (Note: Historic Preservation grant monies cannot be used for site work, new
additions or demolitions of historic building fabric).
b.) Conceptual Architectural plans or elevations drawn to scale showing all building facades on which
work is to be performed, with notes depicting locations/description of specific work items. Include roof
plan when structural roof work is proposed. These documents should be legible and no larger than
11 X 17 inches in size. HP Officer can agree to waive plans and elevations on a case-by-case basis
depending on project circumstances and scope of work.
c.) Structural or architectural building assessments that have already been completed for this
building(s) where applicable.
V. INFORMATION ON PRIMARY LIENHOLDERS
The city's purchase of the Conservation Easement requires the consent of all lienholders. A title report will
be obtained by the City to verify all information provided. Accuracy of this information is critical. Consent
from the lienholder(s) must be received prior to disbursement of any funds.

1. Primary mortgage company: Beyond International

Contact person: Jimmy Lam

Correspondence address: 15615 Alton Pkwy Suite 125, Irvine, CA 93618
(Note: This is usually different
than the payment address)


Company telephone number: (949) 656-7399

Company fax number:

Loan number: Don't have it yet


2. Secondary mortgage company:

Contact person:

Correspondence address:
(Note: This is usually different
than the payment address)


Company telephone number:

Company fax number:

Loan number:




Page 194
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Application – Page 6 of 6 TRT/DOC/00175


VI. SIGNATURE
I declare that I have reviewed the Warehouse and Threatened Building Program requirements, and am
submitting this application in accordance with those requirements. All information submitted is true to the best
of my knowledge and belief. I acknowledge that any error may affect its review and approval. I understand
that if I wish to change any aspect of the project after it has been approved, I must obtain the written consent
of the City Historic Preservation Office. I also understand that I will be required to obtain a Consent
Agreement from my lienholder(s), and will sign and abide by the terms of the Deed of Conservation Easement
and the Program Agreement. I understand and agree that the City Historic Preservation Office staff can
perform necessary site visits on my property at mutually agreed upon times to facilitate their review of this
proposal.
_______________________
Property Owner Signature Date
2/6/2023
_______________________
Property Owner Signature Date




Page 195
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Historic Preservation Office
Warehouse & Threatened Building Checklist

CHECKLIST FOR APPLICATIONS

1. Applicant Cover Letter.
2. Application Form.
3. Attachments.
Please enclose the following items to complete your application (as noted previously in the application
form):
✔ a. Historic Property Inventory Form, if available. (Refer to page 2)

✔ b. Photos of the property showing overall site, street views, exterior facades, and close-up views of
original/decorative features, and areas where work is to be performed. (Refer to page 2)

✔ c. Contractor Estimates for all proposed construction items. At least two cost estimates for each
item preferred. (Refer to page 3)

✔ d. Itemized Budget. Complete Appendix A. (Refer to page 3)

✔ e. Description of Work Items. Complete Appendix B. (Refer to page 4)

✔ f. Detailed Time Schedule and Work Sequence. (Refer to page 4)

✔ g. Project Financial Information. (Refer to page 4)

✔ h. Drawings/Building Assessments. (Refer to page 5)
One original copy of the application should be delivered to the Historic Preservation Office at the following
address. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant and will not be reviewed.
Planning & Development Department
Historic Preservation Office
200 West Washington Street, 3rd floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

APPENDIX A: ITEMIZED BUDGET
Project Name: EV Hotel Phoenix
Property Address: 600 West Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Include an itemized project list and budget for proposed project (including all items not to be funded with
Historic Preservation grant funds).
Eligible Project Construction Items:
Item Name Amount
Preservation of Exterior Structure while building out the new structure $ 275,000.00
Preservation of Signage Structure while building out the hotel $ 75,000.00
Preservation of the Exterior awning and soffit $ 90,000.00
Foundations: Repair of foundation on historic building $ 25,000.00





For more information or for a copy of this publication in an alternate format, contact Planning & Development at
(602) 262-7811 voice / (602) 534-5500 TTY.
S:\Historic Preservation\Handouts & Forms\Financial Incentives\WTB\WTB Checklist HP/DOC/00124
WEB\pdd_hp_pdf_00124.pdf Rev. 9/22

Page 196
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Checklist– Page 2 of 4 TRT/DOC/00175




Eligible Architectural/Structural Expenses:
Can only include expenses that relate directly to grant-eligible work items – cannot
include work related to site plans, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, tenant
improvements, etc. (Pre-agreement expenses eligible within 6 months of application)
Item Name Amount
Soft Costs / Engineer and Architecture Design necessary to preserve the historic building $ 25,000.00




A. Total Eligible Expenses: $ 490,000.00
Architectural/Structural expenses (limited to no more than 10% of request):
Amount: $__________
25,000.00 Percentage of Total Request: __________
5.10%

Ineligible Construction Work to be Funded by Other Sources:
Item Name Amount
Electrical $ 2,125,000.00
Mechanical $ 2,245,000.00
Concrete and Foundations $ 845,000.00
Masonry - Modular Component - Structural Steel $ 7,505,800.00
General Construction - Finishes $ 10,500,000.00
Contingency $ 2,100,000.00
GC Cost $ 1,100,000.00

Item Name Amount
B. Total Ineligible Expenses: $ 26,420,800.00
C. Total Project Cost (A. + B.): $ 26,910,800.00
D. Percent Overmatch (must be at least 1.0) - Divide B / A 53.92

$ 26,420,800.00 / $ 490,000.00 = 53.92
Percent
B / A =
Overmatch




Page 197
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Checklist– Page 3 of 4 TRT/DOC/00175


APPENDIX B: Narrative Description of Eligible Work Items
Project Name: EV Hotel Phoenix
Property Address: 600 West Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Include narrative descriptions for all itemized work items proposed for Warehouse and Threatened Building
funding in Appendix B. (construction items and architectural/structural expenses). This should include a
description of work to be performed and methodology to be used.
Name of Work Item: Preservation of Exterior Structure while building out the new structure
Description: Work necessary to preserve certain historic aspects of the structure




Name of Work Item: Preservation of Signage Structure while building out the hotel
Description: Work necessary to preserve the Signage structure




Name of Work Item: Preservation of the Exterior awning and soffit
Description: Work necessary to preserve the structure of the exterior awning and soffit




Name of Work Item: Foundations: Repair of foundation on historic building
Description: Work necessary to preserve certain portions of the building's foundation so that the structure can be preserved




Name of Work Item:
Description:




Name of Work Item:
Description:




Page 198
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1


Warehouse & Threatened Building Grant Checklist– Page 4 of 4 TRT/DOC/00175


Name of Work Item:
Description:




Name of Work Item:
Description:




Name of Work Item:
Description:




Name of Work Item:
Description:




Name of Work Item:
Description:




Name of Work Item:
Description:




Page 199
MIDCENTURY MARVELS
Commercial Architecture of Phoenix 1945-1975




Page 200




and Ryden Architects, Inc.
LODGING


Page 201




Michael Lundgren
CITY CENTER MOTEL 1959
612 West
Van Buren Street




As a rare, surviving local example of Googie-style
roadside design, the City Center Motel dynamical-
ly balances the imagery of nature and technology.
Its ponderous, battered stone pylon set amid lush
greenery of raised planters counterbalances the
audacious launch of the angular carport roof. This
sleek, soaring roof plane is itself a billboard adver-
tising itself—a fine motel demonstration of Wright’s
“form and function are one.”


Page 202




Barbara Stocklin Postcard Collection

The function of roadside archi- Taliesin West, the heavy desert stone walls and created a visual buffer from the street.
tecture is to attract attention through dra- provided a sturdy platform for the support The glare of the sun is cut by the ornamen-
matic forms. Architect William D. Knight of lightweight roof canopies. He used the tal space-age metal screens. In concert
Jr. and builder Ben Paller used this design metaphor of “cave and bower” for this con- with the architecture, the futuristic roof sign
approach here to create visual excitement trasting visual arrangement. catches motorists’ attention as they cruise
through complex and contradictory visual On the other hand, many the old highway searching for suitable lodg-
relationships. Many themes of the Googie European Modernists insisted that boxlike ings near the center of the city. As is typical
style can be traced to the ideas of Frank buildings should be set in contrast with of highway motels, the lobby and drive-thru
Lloyd Wright who rooted his buildings firmly nature as man-made machines for living in- canopy makes the big architectural state-
in the earth, built walls of natural stone, dependent of the environment. As shown ment while the guest room wings are fairly
wood and bricks, and spread out sheltering on the vintage postcard above, original simple functional buildings that are little
roofs like the boughs of a tree. At Wright’s plantings enhanced the base of the building more than decorated boxes.



DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 203
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 204
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 205
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 206
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 207
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 208
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 209
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 210
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 211
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 212
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 213
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 214
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEF926D6-9D72-4195-B915-8E3E71D46665
EA60CB6F-C45D-48B7-98EA-B2AD22B7D92E
3974D046-406A-451E-BA24-A0AD93E93BA1




Page 215



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-34-20-3
(Pioneer Landscape Center PUD) - Northeast Corner of Cave Creek Road and the
Shangri La Road Alignment (Ordinance G-7094)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-3 (General Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow landscape
material sales and outdoor storage and C-3 uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-3
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.32 acres
Proposed Use: A Planned Unit Development to allow landscape material sales and
outdoor storage and C-3 uses.

Owner: Pierce Enterprises Inc.
Applicant: Pioneer Landscape Centers
Representative: Chris Colyer, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this
case on July 20, 2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
15, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with
modifications, by a vote of 15-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Northeast corner of Cave Creek Road and the Shangri La Road alignment
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 11039 N. Cave Creek Road



Page 216

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




Page 217
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (Z-34-20-3) FROM C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).


____________


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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.32-acre site located at the northeast corner

of Cave Creek Road and the Shangri La Road alignment, in a portion of Sections 21

and 22, Township 3 North, and Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A”, is hereby changed from “C-3” (General Commercial) to “PUD” (Planned Unit

Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

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

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




Page 218
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 Pioneer Landscape Center PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with Development
Narrative date stamped November 30, 2022 as modified by the following
stipulations.

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

b. Page 9: Change the heading title from “Proposed PUD” to “PUD
Requirements.”

c. Page 10, Section D4: Shade: Replace the shade standard as follows:
a. Public and private sidewalks Minimum 75%
b. Employee and customer parking Minimum 25%
areas

d. Page 10: Add a section regarding required vehicular parking standards,
including the following: “Vehicular parking standards shall follow Section
702 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.”

2. For any development that modifies the cumulative floor area of any building by
more than 2,000 square feet, including demolition, from that depicted on the
conceptual site plan date stamped November 30, 2022, the conceptual site
plans, conceptual landscape plans, and elevations shall be administratively
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer prior to preliminary site plan approval
with specific regard to the inclusion of the below elements. This review is for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements
will be determined by the Planning and Development Department.

a. There shall be no more than one point of ingress/egress from Cave Creek
Road.

b. The public sidewalk along Cave Creek Road shall be constructed to a
width of 5 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 11-foot-
wide landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist,
the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department
on alternative design solutions consistent with the creation of a
comfortable pedestrian environment.

i. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees
shall be placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.



Page 219
ii. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum
of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.

c. A minimum of 4 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.

d. The developer shall dedicate a total 50-feet of right-of-way where the last
10-feet may be dedicated as sidewalk easement for the east side of Cave
Creek Road, 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. 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.

5. 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 5th day of April, 2023.



________________________________
MAYOR




Page 220
ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager


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




Page 221
EXHIBIT A

Parcel No. 1: That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 21,
Township 3 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona, being further described as follows:

BEGINNING at the Intersection of the Easterly line of Cave Creek Road, and the East
line of said Section 21, said point lying also South 00’ 09’ 30” West along the east line of
Said Section 21, a distance of 344.02 feet from the east quart of Section 21;

THENCE Southerly along the Easterly line of Said Cave Creek Road, then following
South 20’ 40’ 00” West 280.72 feet;

THENCE along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 750.32 feet
through a central angle of 11’ 15’ 00”, a distance of 147.32 feet;

THENCE South 31’ 55’ 00” West 142.82 feet;

THENCE along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 583.91feet
through a central angle of 4’ 41’ 01”, a distance of 49.54 feet;

THENCE South 88’ 45’ 20” East, 234.68 feet to the East line of Section 21;

THENCE North 00’ 09’ 30” East along said East line, 489.11 feet to the point of
beginning.

Parcel No. 2: A Tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 3
North, Range 3 East of the Gila River and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa
County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCING at the West quarter corner of said Section 22;

THENCE South 00’ 08’ 48” East along the West line of said Section 22 a distance of
578.39 feet, said point being the true point of beginning;

THENCE South 58’ 41’ 12” East a distance of 259.79 feet;

THENCE South 39’ 08’ 13” West a distance of 350.00 feet to a point on the West line of
said Section 22;

THENCE North 00’ 08’ 48” West along said West line a distance of 406.49 feet to the
true point of beginning.

Containing 45,040 square feet or 1.03400 acres.




Page 222
Page 223



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-56-22-4 (22nd
& Indian School PUD) - Southwest Corner of 22nd Street and Indian School Road
(Ordinance G-7093)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District), R1-6 (Approved R-2) (Single-Family
Residence District, Approved Multifamily Residence District), R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District), and C-3 (General Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow a multifamily residential and limited commercial uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 (0.62 acres), R1-6 (Approved R-2) (0.24 acres), R-3 (1.00
acres), and C-3 (3.80 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 5.66 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential and limited commercial uses
Owner: DMS Ventures IS IV, LLC, et al
Applicant/Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on
Dec. 6, 2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
7, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 19-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Southwest corner of 22nd Street and Indian School Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Addresses: 2119, 2121, 2129, 2131, 2133, 2135, 2137, 2141, 2143 and 2149 E.
Indian School Road; 2116 and 2122 E. Fairmount Ave.; and 4040 N. 22nd St.



Page 224

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




Page 225
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-56-22-4) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT), R1-6 (APPROVED R-2) (SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, APPROVED MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT), R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) AND C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.66-acre site located at the southwest

corner of 22nd Street and Indian School Road in a portion of Section 27, Township 2

North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed

from 0.62-acres of “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District), 0.24-acres of “R1-6

Approved R-2” (Single-Family Residence District, Approved Multifamily Residence

District), 1.00 acre of “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District), and 3.80 acres of C-3

(General Commercial) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).




Page 226
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the 22nd & Indian School 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 January 27, 2023, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:


b. Page 7, Lot Development Standards, Maximum Density: update to 56.5
du/gross ac

c. Page 8, Landscape Standards, Landscape Planting, North (Indian School
Road), Landscape Strip: Update first sentence to read “Minimum 11-foot-
wide Landscape Strip between back of curb and sidewalk.”

2. The developer shall dedicate a 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement along the south
side of Indian School Road, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development.
The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all mitigation
identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted
until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

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




Page 227
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR




Page 228
ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 229
EXHIBIT A

A portion of land being situated within Lot 1 of the Final Plat of “Sams Club” per Book
458, Page 08, Records of Maricopa County, Arizona, a portion of land being situated
within Lot 1 & 2 of the Final Plat of “Tres Agua Villas” per Book 944, Page 38, Records
of Maricopa County, Arizona, and a portion of the Northeast quarter of Section 27, all
being within the Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 2 North, Range 3 East of the
Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly
described as follows:

COMMENCING at a found 3 inch City of Phoenix Brass cap flush, RLS 33374, dated
2011, accepted as the centerline intersection of 22 nd Street and Fairmount Avenue from
which a found 3 inch City of Phoenix Brass cap flush accepted as the centerline
intersection of 20th Street and Fairmount Avenue thereof bears
South 89°34’03” West, 1327.67 feet;

Thence North 00°00'38" West, 282.66 feet along the centerline of 22nd street to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;

Thence leaving said centerline, South 89°59'54" West, 311.82 feet to the south line of
Parcel no. 1 and Parcel no. 2 per Special Warranty Deed as recorded in Document no.
2015-0757528, Records of Maricopa County, Arizona;

Thence along said south line, South 89°34'03" West, 154.00 feet to the west line of said
Parcel no. 2;

Thence leaving said south line and along said west line, North 00°00'02" East, 7.00 feet
to the south line of Parcel 2 per Special Warranty Deed as recorded in Document no.
2015-0755506, Records of Maricopa County, Arizona;

Thence along said south line, South 89°34'03" West, 198.01 feet to the east line of said
Final Plat of “Sam’s Club”;

Thence along said east line and the northerly prolongation thereof,
North 00°00'02" East, 368.38 feet to the centerline of Indian School Road;

Thence along said centerline, North 89°31'58" East, 663.77 feet to said centerline of
22nd Street;

Thence along said centerline, South 00°00'38" East, 304.53 feet to the easterly
prolongation of the north line of the Warranty Deed as recorded in Document no. 2009-
0673314, Records of Maricopa County, Arizona;

Thence leaving said centerline and along said north line, South 89°34'03" West, 65.33
feet to the west line of said Warranty Deed;




Page 230
Thence leaving said north line and along said west line, South 00°00'38" East, 39.25
feet to the south line of said Warranty Deed;

Thence leaving said west line and along said south line and the easterly prolongation
thereof, North 89°34'03" East, 65.33 feet to said centerline of 22nd Street;

Thence along said centerline, South 00°00'38" East, 34.34 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.

The above described parcel contains a computed area of 245,720 sq. ft. (5.6410 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 231
Page 232



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-78-22-6 -
Approximately 470 Feet South of the Southeast Corner of 38th Street and
Weldon Avenue (Ordinance G-7092)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to allow
multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 1.05 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential

Owner: Dawn Marie Augusta
Applicant: Risome, LLC
Representative: William Allison, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
7, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a
modification and additional stipulations, by a vote of 18-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-1.

Location
Approximately 470 feet south of the southeast corner of 38th Street and Weldon
Avenue
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 3451 N. 38th St.

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

Page 233
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-78-22-6) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.05 acre property located approximately

470 feet south of the southeast corner of 38th Street and Weldon Avenue in a portion of

Section 25, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

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

(Multifamily Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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




Page 234
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
January 31, 2022 as approved by the Planning and Development Department

2. The landscape setback along the east and south property lines shall be planted with
minimum 2-inch caliper trees, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. The development shall be in general conformance to the landscape plan dated
February 7, 2023, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. There shall be no skydeck on Unit 10.

5. Vision obscuring glass shall be used for the second story of the south façade of Unit
15.

6. Skydeck configuration shall conform to the sight-line drawings dated February 2,
2023.

7. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk along the east side of
38th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.


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

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

10. 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




Page 235
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 236
EXHIBIT A

A portion of Section: 25 Township: 2N Range: 3E

The North half of Lot 176, North Citrus Acres Amended, according to Book 23 of Maps,
page 46, records of Maricopa County, Arizona;
EXCEPT the East 305 feet of the North half; and also
EXCEPT the South 80 feet of the West 200 feet of said North half; and also
EXCEPT the North 4 feet of the South 84 feet of the West 100 feet of said North half.




Page 237
Page 238



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-84-22-7 -
Approximately 315 Feet South of the Southeast Corner of 83rd Avenue and
McDowell Road (Ordinance G-7091)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 HGT/WVR (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver) to C-2 HGT/WVR
DNS/WVR (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, Density Waiver) to allow
multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 HGT/WVR
Proposed Zoning: C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR
Acreage: 10.48
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: Residence at McDowell, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb. 8,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 9-2.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.

Location
Approximately 315 feet south of the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue and McDowell
Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Addresses: 1417 N. 83rd Ave. and 8225 W. McDowell Road

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

Page 239
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-84-22-7) FROM C-2 HGT/WVR
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HEIGHT WAIVER) TO C-2
HGT/WVR DNS/WVR (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HEIGHT
WAIVER, DENSITY WAIVER).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 10.48-acre property located approximately

315 feet south of the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue and McDowell Road in a portion

of Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A,” is hereby changed from “C-2 HGT/WVR” (Intermediate Commercial, Height

Waiver), to “C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR” (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver,

Density 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.”




Page 240
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. Upon complete redevelopment or development that increases the cumulative
floor area by more than 15% from that depicted on the site plan date stamped
October 27, 2022, 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
aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. The landscape setback along McDowell Road and 83rd Avenue shall be planted
with a minimum 50% 2-inch caliper trees, minimum 25% 3-inch caliper trees, and
minimum 25% 4-inch caliper trees, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Where possible, the developer shall use existing
trees and landscaping to meet the landscaping requirements.

3. Where landscape areas will be replenished, a minimum of 10% of the required
shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native nectar species, and shall be planted
in groups of three or more, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. 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 10 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department.

5. Where pedestrian walkways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be constructed
with decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another treatment
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The following amenities shall be provided and dispersed throughout the
development, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

a. Ramadas

b. BBQ

c. Tot lot

d. Dog park




Page 241
7. Bicycle infrastructure shall be provided as described below and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

a. A minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks, or in a secure room and located
throughout the site including near the centralized open space and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

b. One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained on site within an amenity area or near a primary site entrance.
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.

8. Upon complete redevelopment or development that increases the cumulative
floor area by more than 15% from the depicted on the site plan date stamped
October 27, 2022, a minimum 6-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided along the
south side of McDowell Road and be detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide
landscaped strip located between the back of the sidewalk and back of curb, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. The landscape strip
will be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree. Where utility conflict
exists, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department
on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 242
12. 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.

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

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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:




Page 243
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 244
EXHIBIT A

THAT PORTION OF THE SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, GILA
AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOT 1, LEGACY SUITES APARTMENTS, ACCORDING TO BOOK 651 OF MAPS,
PAGE 36, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

EXCEPT THE SOUTH 10.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 65.00 FEET OF THE EAST
343.65 FEET AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF PHOENIX ON APRIL 30, 2009 IN
DOCUMENT NO. 2009-0382824 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.




Page 245
Page 246



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Amend City Code -
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-74-22-8 - Approximately 340 Feet
North of the Northwest Corner of 27th Avenue and Baseline Road (Ordinance
G-7090)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) to allow
single-family residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 9.78 acres
Proposal: Single-family residential

Owner: Hilario Casillas
Applicant/Representative: Francisco Badilla

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb. 13,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications,
by a vote of 7-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Laveen VPC recommendation, with a modification, by
a vote of 5-2.

Location
Approximately 340 feet north of the northwest corner of 27th Avenue and Baseline
Road
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 7408, 7416 and 7426 S. 27th Ave.

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

Page 247
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-74-22-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) TO R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 9.78-acre site located approximately 340 feet

north of the northwest corner of 27th Avenue and Baseline Road in a portion of Section

35, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is

hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence), to “R1-10” (Single-Family

Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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




Page 248
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The maximum density for the project shall not exceed 17 lots.

2. A minimum 22-foot garage setback for front-loaded garages, measured from
the back of sidewalk, shall be provided for each home in the development, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. The conceptual building elevations, landscape plan, wall plan, and signage for
monument and entryway shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process, including review by the
Laveen Village Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to
preliminary site plan approval, with specific regard to the following elements.
This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development
standards and requirements may be determined by the Planning Hearing
Officer and the Planning and Development Department.

a. The elevations shall incorporate four-sided architecture, and exterior accent
materials, detailing, and color palette, with a modern farmhouse design,
that conveys a sense of continuity throughout the development.

4. Partial view fencing, which may include solid columns up to 24 inches in width,
shall be utilized where walls are proposed adjacent to the open space and trail
to the west, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

5. Project entry/exit drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping with a variety
of at least three plant materials, with a minimum landscape area of 250 square
feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. All street improvements outside of Phoenix City limits along 27th Avenue shall
be reviewed and approved by Maricopa County.

7. The developer shall construct a minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk with a
minimum 10-foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and
sidewalk along the west side of 27th Avenue, planted to the following
standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department and
Maricopa County Department of Transportation.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade
trees, planted 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings, to provide a
minimum of 75% shade, at maturity. Shade calculations shall be based on
summer solstice at noon as shown on a shading exhibit.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to provide a




Page 249
minimum of 75% live coverage, at maturity.

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

8. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 25 feet of right-of-way for the south
half of Ellis Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 50-feet of right-of-way for all local
public streets within the development, 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, detached sidewalks, curb ramps,
streetlights, median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements
shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

11. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. The form and content
of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions
provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

12. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of nearby existing ranchettes, animal privilege
private properties and rodeo private properties that may cause adverse noise,
odors, dust, and other externalities. The form and content of such documents
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Additionally, the
disclosures shall be noted in the CC&Rs in a section titled “nuisances”.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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




Page 250
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

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

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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




Page 251
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 252
EXHIBIT A

The North half of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of
Section 35, Township One North, Range Two East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian:
EXCEPT the East 55 feet for roadway.




Page 253
Page 254



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-75-22-8 -
Southwest Corner of 51st Avenue and Elliot Road (Ordinance G-7089)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved Single-Family Residence District, Planned Community District),
and S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Neighborhood
Retail, Planned Community District) to C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) to allow multifamily
residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 (1.68 acres), S-1 (Approved R1-10 PCD) (1.07 acres), and S-1 (C
-1 PCD) (9.98 acres)
Proposed Zoning: C-1 (Neighborhood Retail)
Acreage: 12.73 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: Armon and Ruth Cheatham Trust
Applicant: IDM Companies
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Jan. 9,
2023, for information only.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb. 13,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification
and an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation,
by a vote of 7-0-1.

Location
Southwest corner of 51st Avenue and Elliot Road
Council District: 8


Page 255

Parcel Addresses: 11000 S. 51st Ave.; 5115, 5125 and 5129 W. Elliot Road

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




Page 256
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-75-22-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE), S-1 (APPROVED R1-10 PCD) (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE, APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT), S-1 (APPROVED
C-1 PCD) (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE, APPROVED
NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT)
TO C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 12.73 acre site located at the southwest

corner of 51st Avenue and Elliot Road in a portion of Section 17, Township 1 South,

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

1.68 acres of “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence), 1.07 acres of “S-1 (Approved R1-10

PCD)” (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family Residence District, Planned

Community District), and 9.98 acres of “S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD)” (Ranch or Farm

Residence, Approved Neighborhood Retail, Planned Community District) to “C-1”

(Neighborhood Retail).




Page 257
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The maximum density for the project shall not exceed 10 dwelling units per gross
acre.

2. The development shall be in general conformance with the building elevations
date stamped February 3, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. All required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50% 2-inch
caliper, and minimum 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought-tolerant trees,
planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

4. The primary vehicular entrance to the development shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

a. Pedestrian pathways connecting the interior of the development to the public
sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular driveway.

b. The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the vehicular driveway and
lined with landscape areas on both sides of not less than 5 feet wide. The
landscape area shall be planted with drought-tolerant plant materials
providing seasonal interest and 75% live cover.

c. A mix of ornamental trees (no less than 2-inch caliper), shrubs (no less than
five, five-gallon shrubs per tree) and flower beds that will provide a variety of
texture and color throughout the year and 75% live cover, shall be provided
along both sides of the entryway and within a landscaped median of no less
than 5 feet.

d. The driveway surface shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or another material, other than those used to pave the
parking surfaces.

5. Perimeter walls surrounding the development, along 51st Avenue and Elliot
Road, shall be a minimum of 50% open, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 258
6. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

7. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25% shade at maturity, as approved
by Planning and Development Department.

8. The bus stop pad adjacent to the development shall be shaded a minimum of
50% using drought-tolerant shade trees at maturity and/or a shade structure, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. A minimum of one pedestrian pathway shall be provided within close proximity
to the intersection of 51st Avenue and Elliot Road, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

10. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces.
Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.

11. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of
ingress and egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the
public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. A minimum of 30 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located throughout the site including near the centralized
open space 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.

13. The developer shall construct a bus stop pad on southbound 51st Avenue in
accordance with City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a depth of 10 feet
and located from Elliot Road according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1258, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

14. Public sidewalks adjacent to the development shall be shaded a minimum of
75%, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility
conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.

15. The developer shall construct detached sidewalks along 51st Avenue and Elliot
Road, as required by the Tierra Montana Master Street Plan, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.



Page 259
16. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct improvements along
the south side of Elliot Road as required by the Tierra Montana Master Street
Plan, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

17. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct improvements along
the west side of 51st Avenue as required by the Tierra Montana Master Street
Plan, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

18. Access control for the site shall follow the approved Tierra Montana Master
Street Plan or as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

19. The developer shall construct the median along Elliot Road as required by the
Tierra Montana Master Street Plan from 52nd Drive to the western limits of APN
300-02-046R including appropriate tapers, as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

20. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Statement including a signal
warrant analysis for this development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be
granted until the statement has been reviewed and approved by the city. The
developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of a traffic signal or if a
traffic signal is not warranted upon opening, the developer will be required to
provide 25% contribution toward a traffic signal in an escrow account to the
Street Transportation Department, as required by the approved Traffic Impact
Statement.

21. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southwest corner
of 51st Avenue and Elliott. The plans shall be submitted and approved by the
Street Transportation and Planning and Development Departments.

22. Existing irrigation facilities along 51st Avenue are to be undergrounded and
relocated outside of city right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights
and establish the appropriate process to relocate the facility. Relocations that
require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to
obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.

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. A qualified historian, architectural historian or cultural resource firm shall
document the history of Barney Ranch within one year of rezoning approval in
accordance with Part IV of the Arizona Reporting Standards for Cultural
Resources, as approved by the Historic Preservation Office.

25. 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

Page 260
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.

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

27. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 Waiver of Claims forms. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.

28. A minimum of 10% of the gross project area shall be retained as open space, 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 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________



Page 261
REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 262
EXHIBIT A

A portion of land being situated within the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 1
South, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona,
being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at a found Maricopa County Highway Department brass cap in hand hole
accepted as the Northeast corner of said Section 17, from which a found Maricopa
County Highway Department brass cap in hand hole accepted as the East Quarter
corner thereof bears South 00°01'50" West, 2630.60 feet;

Thence South 00°01'50" West, 787.54 feet along the east line of said Northeast Quarter
to the northern boundary line of the Final Plat of Tierra Montana-Phase 1- Parcel 11, as
recorded in Book 952, Page 12, records of Maricopa County, Arizona;

Thence North 89°58'21" West, 467.31 feet along said northern boundary line to an
angle point therein;

Thence North 44°23'20" West, 416.73 feet to the easterly boundary line of said Final
Plat;

Thence North 00°02'17" East, 490.64 feet along said easterly boundary line to the north
line of said Northeast Quarter;

Thence South 89°54'56" East, 758.92 feet along said north line to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.

The above described parcel contains a computed area of 554,593 sq. ft. (12.7317
acres) more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of
record or otherwise.




Page 263
Page 264



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-2-22-4 (11th
Street and McDowell PUD) - Northwest Corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road
(Ordinance G-7095)

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-2-22-4
and rezone the site from R1-6 HP CNSPD (Single-Family Residence District, Historic
Preservation, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District), R-3A CNSPD
(Multifamily Residence District, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District), P-1
CNSPD (Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited, Coronado Neighborhood Special
Planning District), and C-2 CNSPD (Intermediate Commercial, Coronado
Neighborhood Special Planning District) to PUD CNSPD (Planned Unit Development,
Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District) and PUD HP CNSPD (Planned
Unit Development, Historic Preservation, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning
District) to allow multifamily residential, retail use and retention of the historic single-
family homes. This is a companion case to Z-15-22-4.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 HP CNSPD (1.49 acres), R-3A CNSPD (0.74 acres), P-1
CNSPD (1.40 acres) and C-2 CNSPD (1.53 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD CNSPD (4.05 acres), PUD HP CNSPD (1.11 acres)
Acreage: 5.16
Proposed Use: PUD to allow multifamily residential, retail use and retention of the
historic single-family homes.

Owner: Vikki Reed, et al.
Applicant: Ed McCoy, Fairfield Residential
Representative: Kurt Waldier, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on
May 2, 2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Jan. 9, 2023,
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-2-1.
HPC Action: The Historic Preservation Commission heard this case on Feb. 13, 2023,


Page 265

and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with the stipulation for
perpetual conservations easements, by a vote of 6-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee recommendation
with a modification, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 1040 E. McDowell Road and 1622, 1626, 1630, 1634, 1638, 1642 and
1646 N. 11th St.

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




Page 266
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (Z-2-22-4) FROM R1-6 HP CNSPD (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, HISTORIC PRESERVATION,
CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT),
R-3A CNSPD (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT,
CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT),
P-1 CNSPD (PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE PARKING, LIMITED,
CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT),
AND C-2 CNSPD (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT)
TO PUD CNSPD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CORONADO
NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT) AND PUD HP
CNSPD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICT).


____________


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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.16-acre site located at the northwest

corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road, in a portion of Section 33, Township 2 North,

and Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from

1.49 acres of “R1-6 HP CNSPD” (Single-Family Residence District, Historic

Preservation, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District), 0.74-acres of “R-3A



Page 267
CNSPD” (Multifamily Residence District, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning

District), 1.40 acres of “P-1 CNSPD” (Parking District – Passenger Automobile Parking,

Limited, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District), and 1.53 acres of “C-2

CNSPD” (Intermediate Commercial District, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning

District) to 4.05-acres of “PUD CNSPD” (Planned Unit Development, Coronado

Neighborhood Special Planning District) and 1.11 acres of “PUD HP CNSPD” (Planned

Unit Development, Historic Preservation, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning

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 the 11th Street and McDowell 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 December 23, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Page 10, Permitted Uses, Mixed-Use Residential / Commercial Land Use
Category: Modify the requirement for a minimum square footage of
commercial to read as follows:

Shall provide a minimum of 5,000 square feet non-residential uses. Non-
residential uses shall not include, lobby, exercise, receptions areas, or
other similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All non-
residential uses shall have their primary access from perimeter rights-of-
way.




Page 268
b. Page 12, Landscape Standards, Streetscape – Adjacent to Public Right-of
-Way: Add a section to the table that contains the following standards:

All streetscapes shall provide a detached sidewalk and a landscape strip.
Standards for the detached sidewalks and landscape strips are as
follows:

 McDowell Road
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 11 feet
 11th Street (South of the paseo)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet
 Dayton Street (South, within 225 feet of McDowell Road)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet
 Dayton Street (North, 225 feet north of McDowell Road)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet
 Coronado Road
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet

c. Page 16, Landscape Standards, Minimum Open Space: Add the
following language to this section:

The paseo shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and provide for a
continuous pedestrian connection between 11th Street and Dayton
Street. Entry points for the paseo shall be provided at both 11th Street
and Dayton Street per the Circulation Plan (Exhibit 12).

d. Page 25, Sustainability, City Enforced Standards: Modify the standard
related to electric vehicle charging stations to read as follows:

A minimum of 20 Level 1 electric vehicle charging stations shall be
provided within the parking garage.

2. Perpetual conservation easements, in accordance with the requirements of the
City’s Historic Preservation Office, shall be recorded on the following properties
(which constitute a portion of this site): 1622 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-
014A); 1626 North 11th Street APN 117-25-015); 1630 North 11th Street (APN
117-25-016; 1634 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-017); 1638 North 11th Street
(APN 117-25-018); 1642 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-019); and 1646 North


Page 269
11th Street (APN 117-25-020), with modified boundaries consistent with the HP
zoning overlay boundary adjustment.

3. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer will present updated
building elevations for the seven-story portion of the development to the Encanto
Village Planning Committee for informational purposes only and to provide
review and comment. The intent of this meeting is to inform the committee as to
how the developer has enhanced the visual presence of the building via the
following architectural features:

• Use of color
• Material changes
• Artistic elements and murals on the ground floor

The elevations shall be consistent with the conceptual elevations (Exhibit 10) in
the PUD Narrative date stamped December 23, 2022, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

4. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 40-foot of right-of-way and minimum 4-
foot-wide sidewalk easement along the north side of McDowell Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development and Street Transportation
departments.

5. All minimum streetscape requirements within the PUD Narrative shall be
completely located within right-of-way or appropriate sidewalk easement, as
modified and approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation departments.

6. The developer shall provide $115,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device
along McDowell Road prior to preliminary site plan approval and as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.

7. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all
mitigation identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall
be granted until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

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

9. The developer shall work with the Street Transportation Department, Traffic
Services Division, for the application submission for speed hump/s along Dayton
Street between McDowell Road and Coronado Road, prior to preliminary site
plan approval. Improvements are subject to public petitioning approval per the


Page 270
Speed Hump Program requirements from all property owners on the west and
east side of Dayton Street from McDowell Road to Coronado Road. The
developer shall be responsible for providing all funding of such improvements
prior to requesting certificate of occupancy.

10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International 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.

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 5th day of April, 2023.



________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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



Page 271
By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager


Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (3 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 272
EXHIBIT A

Legal Description for the Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial Land Use Category
(PUD CNSPD):

LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 3, LOT 1, OF "MEDICAL CARE INTERNATIONAL PHOENIX SURGICENTER
SUBDIVISION AMENDED", ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON
FILE AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003-1275151
IN BOOK 651 OF PLATS AT PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.

TOGETHER WITH AND INCLUDING A PORTION OF LOTS 4 THROUGH 10,
FRANCES HEIGHTS, AMENDED, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF
ON FILE AND RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS AT PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4, FRANCES
HEIGHTS, AMENDED:

THENCE SOUTH 00°00'39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 236.09 FEET (RECORD) 263.43
FEET (MEASURED) ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR 11TH
STREET;

THENCE SOUTH 44°36'33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 9.96 FEET TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR MCDOWELL ROAD;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
MCDOWELL ROAD THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES. NORTH
89°13'46" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 140.34 FEET:

THENCE SOUTH 00°00'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 4.50 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89°13'46" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 135.35 FEET (RECORD) 135.42
FEET (MEASURED);

THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR MCDOWELL ROAD
NORTH 45°23'07" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 9.83' TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE FOR DAYTON STREET;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR DAYTON
STREET NORTH 00°00'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 579.62' (RECORD) 579.97'
(MEASURED);


Page 273
THENCE 18.67 FEET ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 12.00 FEET, AND A DELTA ANGLE OF 89°08'34" TO THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR CORONADO ROAD;

CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR CORONADO
ROAD SOUTH 89°09'54" EAST (RECORD) SOUTH 89°10'41" EAST (MEASURED) A
DISTANCE OF 176.15 FEET;

THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, BEARING SOUTH 00°00'13" EAST, A
DISTANCE 351.06 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 4, FRANCES
HEIGHTS, AMENDED;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 4, NORTH 89°13'14" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 101.65' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Legal Description for the Historic Homes Land Use Category (PUD CNSPD HP):

LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOT 4, FRANCES HEIGHTS, AMENDED, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT
THEREOF ON FILE AND RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS AT PAGE 35 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

LESS AND EXCEPT FROM SAID LOT 4: ALL THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN
THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDICAL CARE INTERNATIONAL PHOENIX SURGICENTER
SUBDIVISION", ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND
RECORDED IN BOOK 350 OF PLATS AT PAGE 40, AND THE FINAL PLAT OF
"MEDICAL CARE INTERNATIONAL PHOENIX SURGICENTER SUBDIVISION
AMENDED" ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003-1275151 IN BOOK
651 OF PLATS AT PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA.

LESS AND EXCEPT FROM THAT PORTION OF LOT 4, FRANCES HEIGHTS,
AMENDED ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND
RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS AT PAGE 35 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF LOT 4, FRANCES HEIGHTS,
AMENDED ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND
RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS AT PAGE 35 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA.

THENCE SOUTH 89°13'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 101.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.


Page 274
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89°13'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 23.17 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 45°23'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 21.07 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00°00'23" WEST (RECORD) NORTH 00°00'13" WEST
(MEASURED), A DISTANCE OF 35.07 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89°18'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 38.16 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 00°00'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.

TOGETHER WITH AND IN ADDITION TO:

LOTS 5 THROUGH 10, FRANCES HEIGHTS, AMENDED, ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS AT
PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

LESS AND EXCEPT FROM THE WEST 38.16 FEET OF LOTS 5 THROUGH 10 OF
FRANCES HEIGHTS, AMENDED ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF
ON FILE AND RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS AT PAGE 35 OF THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA.




Page 275
Page 276
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-2-22-4
(11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023

Encanto Village Planning Committee January 9, 2023
Meeting Date:
Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 2, 2023
Request From: R1-6 HP CNSPD (Single-Family Residence
District, Historic Preservation, Coronado
Neighborhood Special Planning District) (1.49
acres), R-3A CNSPD (Multifamily Residence
District, Coronado Neighborhood Special
Planning District) (0.74 acres), P-1 CNSPD
(Parking District – Passenger Automobile
Parking, Limited, Coronado Neighborhood
Special Planning District) (1.40 acres), C-2
CNSPD (Intermediate Commercial, Coronado
Neighborhood Special Planning District) (1.53
acres)
Request To: PUD CNSPD (Planned Unit Development,
Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning
District) (4.05 acres), PUD HP CNSPD
(Planned Unit Development, Historic
Preservation, Coronado Neighborhood Special
Planning District) (1.11 acres)

Proposed Use: PUD to allow multifamily residential, retail use,
and retention of the historic single-family
homes
Location: Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell
Road
Owner: Vikki Reed, et al.
Applicant: Ed McCoy, Fairfield Residential
Representative: Kurt Waldier, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations




Page 277
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


General Plan Conformity
Commercial and Residential 3.5 to 5
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
dwelling units per acre
Varies from 33.5 to 40-
McDowell Road Arterial Street
foot north half street
Street Map 11th Street Local Street 25-foot west half street
Classification
Dayton Street Local Street 25-foot east half street
Coronado Road Local Street 25-foot south half 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 proposal includes design and development standards to encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use. These standards include shaded streetscapes, units fronting
onto the public sidewalks, parking situated away from the public streets, and on-site
amenities.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HISTORIC DISTRICTS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote land use that
encourages continued use of historic resources through rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse.

The proposal includes the integration and preservation of the seven historically
designated homes on 11th Street into the project and restricts their use to single-family
residential.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
&
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Locate parking to the rear of a site to create a more pedestrian
environment, when adequate shielding from noise and light can be provided to
adjacent established neighborhoods. On-street parking in some areas may also
promote a pedestrian environment.

The proposal includes design and development standards to promote alternative
transportation, discourage vehicle trips, and to promote compatibility with the
surrounding land uses. The proposal included both resident and guest bicycle parking,
requirements that parking structures be wrapped by dwelling units, and for well
landscaped and active streetscape environments around the perimeter of the site.
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


Page 278
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.

The proposal will add housing opportunities within one-quarter mile of Banner University
Medical Center, Coronado Park, and Emerson Elementary School and within one mile
of light rail, the Phoenix Bio Medical Campus, and Roosevelt Row. These additional
housing opportunities supports goals contained in the Housing Phoenix Plan to
preserve and create 50,000 units by 2030.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal will create a pedestrian friendly streetscape environment consistent with
the Walkable Urban Code’s requirement for 75 percent shade.


Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District: See Background Item No. 11.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 15.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 16.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 17.
Zero Waste Phoenix: See Background Item No. 18.

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 5.16 gross acres located at the northwest corner of
11th Street and McDowell Road from 1.49 acres of R1-6 HP CNSPD (Single-
Family Residence District, Historic Preservation, Coronado Neighborhood
Special Planning District), 0.74 acres of R-3A CNSPD (Multifamily Residence
District, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District), 1.40 acres of P-1
CNSPD (Parking District – Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited, Coronado
Neighborhood Special Planning District), and 1.53 acres of C-2 CNSPD
(Intermediate Commercial, Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District) to
4.05 acres of PUD CNSPD (Planned Unit Development, Coronado
Neighborhood Special Planning District) and 1.11 acres of PUD HP CNSPD
(Planned Unit Development, Historic Preservation, Coronado Neighborhood
Special Planning District) to allow multifamily residential, retail use, and retention
of the historic single-family homes.




Page 279
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


2. The subject site has two General Plan
Land Use Map designations bisecting it
on the Almeria Road alignment. North of
the Almeria Road alignment is a
General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre and south of the
Almeria Road alignment is a General
Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial. The development proposal
is consistent with the Commercial
designation and inconsistent with the
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre designation.
General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
East of the subject site across 11th Planning and Development Department
Street are two land use designations:
Commercial south of Almeria Road and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre north of Almeria Road.

West of the subject site across Dayton Street are two land use designations:
Commercial south of the Almeria Road alignment and Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre north of the Almeria Road alignment.

North of the subject site across Coronado Road are residential homes with a
General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre.

South of the subject site across McDowell Road is the Banner University
Medical Center which has a General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Public/Quasi-Public.

SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
3. To the north of the site across Coronado Road are single-family homes zoned
R1-6 HP (Single-Family Residence District, Historic Preservation) and R-3 HP
(Multifamily Residence District, Historic Preservation). To the south of the site
across McDowell Road is the Banner University Medical Center zoned PUD
(Planned Unit Development) per Rezoning Case No. Z-63-18-8. To the east
across 11th Street are medical offices zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial),
multifamily residential zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence District), and single-
family homes zoned R1-6 HP (Single-Family Residence District, Historic
Preservation). To the west across Dayton Street are medical offices zoned C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) and a surface parking lot zoned P-1 (Parking District
– Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited).




Page 280
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


PROPOSAL
4. The development narrative 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.

The conceptual site plan depicts a total of 271 multifamily dwellings, seven
single-family residential homes, and ground floor retail oriented to McDowell
Road. The existing seven single-family residential homes will be retained, and
the remainder of the site will be redeveloped with a seven-story mixed-use
building adjacent to McDowell Road, a four-story building adjacent to Dayton
Street near the center of the site, and a one-story amenity building and parking
lot near Coronado Road.

The PUD proposes the following mix of unit types within the PUD boundary:
• Minimum 15 percent studio units (less than 600 square feet)
• Minimum 20 percent one-bedroom units
• Minimum 15 percent two-bedroom units
• Minimum 4 percent attached two-story townhome units and/or detached
single-family units


5. Land Use Categories: The development narrative
and conceptual site plans include a regulatory
framework based on two land use categories.

Land Use Category: Historic Homes – The subject
site includes seven single-family residential homes
currently zoned R1-6 HP. The development
narrative requires all historic homes be retained and
be governed by R1-6 HP standards. The request
would reduce the lot depth by approximately 38 feet
and the current HP designation would be reduced
by that same amount.

Land Use Category: Mixed Use Residential /
Commercial – The remainder of the subject site is
governed by the Mixed Use Residential /
Commercial Land Use Category which allows uses
based on the Walkable Urban (WU) Code Transect
5:6 from Chapter 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. As stipulated this land use category PUD Land Use Areas,
requires a minimum 5,000 square feet of ground Source: Todd+Associates
floor commercial uses adjacent to McDowell Road.


Page 281
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


6. Mixed Use Residential / Commercial -
Height Zones: The Mixed Use Residential
/ Commercial Land Use Category utilizes
the WU Code as applicable to T5:6 for its
development standards with modifications,
most notable its use of three “height
zones” to govern the height intensity
permitted on different parts of the site.
• Height Zone 1: Extending
approximately 80 feet north of
McDowell Road, this height zone
permits a maximum height of 80
feet.
• Height Zone 2: The remainder of
the subject site within the Mixed
Use Residential / Commercial Land
Use Category is regulated by
Height Zone 2 which allows a
maximum height of 48 feet.
• Height Zone 3: Extending
approximately 78 feet south of
Coronado Road, this height zone is
intended to promote compatibility
with the adjacent neighborhood by
restricting development to a
maximum height of 20 feet.
PUD Height Zone Map,
Source: Todd+Associates



7. Development Standards: The PUD Narrative proposes a comprehensive set of
development standards aimed at creating pedestrian oriented development. The
following summary highlights some of the PUD Narrative’s standards that will
define how it interfaces with the surrounding public streets.

Streetscape Standards (and Sidewalk Detachments): In the Transit Midtown
Character Area, the WU Code requires detached sidewalks with trees planted
between the back of curb and sidewalk to provide both shade and physical
comfort by separating the pedestrian realm from vehicular traffic. The PUD
Narrative requires detached sidewalks separated by the streets with landscape
street along all the adjacent streets. Coupled with the shade requirements for
the public sidewalks, and the streetscapes for the development will offer safe
and comfortable environments for pedestrians. Stipulation No. 1.b reinforces
the minimum streetscape requirements for the widths of the landscape strip and
sidewalk for each of the streets to ensure that the envisioned streetscape is
provided.

Page 282
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023



Frontage Types: The WU Code T5:6 transect requires that a minimum of 70
percent of the “Primary Lot Frontage” and 50 percent of the “Secondary Lot
Frontages) be comprised of compliant WU Code Frontage Types which
encourage direct access to the buildings and activity at the ground floor.
• To complement its requirement that 5,000 square feet of ground floor
commercial be provided along McDowell Road, the development
narrative limits the permitted frontage types to arcade and storefront for
75 percent of the frontage which is superior to the WU Code minimum
requirement. Stipulation No. 1.a amends the requirement for ground
floor commercial uses to specify that those uses are not solely for the use
of the development’s residents.
• Along Dayton Street, the development narrative requires compliant
frontage types for 50 percent of the frontage which is consistent with the
50 percent that would be required through the WU Code.
• Along 11th Street, the frontage within the Mixed Use Residential /
Commercial Land Use Category requires compliant frontage types for 50
percent of the frontage which is consistent with the 50 percent that would
be required through the WU Code.
• To address resident concerns regarding parking and compatibility along
its northern frontage, the development narrative exempts the Coronado
Road frontage from the frontage type requirements contained in the WU
Code as applicable to T5:6.

Parking Setbacks: The WU Code T5:6 requires that the parking be setback from
the “Primary Frontage” by a minimum of 30 feet or be positioned behind a
building and be setback from “Secondary Frontages” by 20 feet including a 10-
foot landscape setback.
• The development narrative meets the above standard for McDowell Road
(“the Primary Frontage”) by situating the parking structure both 30 feet
from the right-of-way and by wrapping it with ground floor retail and upper
story dwelling units.
• To the south, east, and west, the parking structure is wrapped by dwelling
units which is an enhanced standard.
• To the north, the surface parking lot is situated approximately 10 feet from
the Coronado Road right-of-way which is not consistent to the WU Code
but is intended to provide a transition to the neighborhood to the north.

Large Scale Development Standards: The WU Code requires a suite of
enhancements for sites that exceed five acres and/or have a block length of
greater than 600 feet. The subject site meets both thresholds, and the PUD
Narrative includes the following requirements:
• Paseo: A publicly accessible paseo is depicted on the conceptual site
plans to bisect the site east-west that breaks up the mass of the proposed
development and provides a well shaded pedestrian pathway through the
site. Stipulation No. 1.c adds standards for the paseo that require a


Page 283
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


minimum width that exceeds the Zoning Ordinance standards to provide
for an enhanced pedestrian setting.
• Publicly Accessible Open Space. The development narrative requires that
a minimum five percent of the gross lot area be retained as shaded and
publicly accessible open space. The conceptual site plans depict this
publicly accessible open space at the southeast corner of the site near
the intersection of 11th Street and McDowell Road.

8. Design Guidelines
In addition to applicable WU Code Design Guidelines, the development narrative
contains design guidelines addressing building facades which are intended to
enhance the visual interest of the structures, mitigate the impact of building
massing and height, and provide high-quality design. Guidelines require four-
sided architecture, architectural embellishments, enhanced building materials,
and no dwelling unit windows oriented to the north.

The design of the buildings has been a focus of discussions with the
neighborhood. Stipulation No. 3 has been included requiring the developer to
present additional information for review and comment to the Encanto Village
Planning Committee regarding the use of color, material changes and artistic
elements and murals on the ground floor. The developer has provided an
alternative design concept from the PUD Narrative’s building elevations. The
renderings of this design concept are attached to this report and date stamped
December 30, 2022. Stipulation No. 3 contemplates either the PUD Narrative’s
building elevations or the attached alternative renderings as serving as the basis
of the future design presentation to the Encanto Village Planning Committee.

9. Sustainability
The development narrative proposes a series of sustainability features such as
bicycle repair stations, secure bicycle parking, recycling, green waste recycling,
30-day transit passes for new residents, xeriscaping, five percent of vehicle
parking equipped with electric vehicle charging, cool roof designs, and Energy
Star Appliances. Stipulation No. 1.d. clarifies the project will be required to
provide a minimum of 20 Level 1 electric vehicle charging stations.

HP OVERLAY BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
10. As noted earlier in this report, the subject site includes seven single-family
residential homes currently zoned R1-6 HP. The development narrative requires
all historic homes be retained and be governed by R1-6 HP standards. The
request would reduce the lot depth by approximately 38 feet and the current HP
designation would be reduced by that same amount.

Section 807.E of the Zoning Ordinance states that, when applying the evaluation
criteria in Section 807.D, the boundaries of a historic district should be drawn as
carefully as possible to ensure that:



Page 284
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


1) The district contains documented historic, architectural, archaeological or
natural resources;
2) The district boundaries coincide with documented historic boundaries
such as early roadways, canals, subdivision plats or property lines;
3) Other district boundaries coincide with logical physical or manmade
features and reflect recognized neighborhood or area boundaries; and
4) Other non-historic resources or vacant land is included where necessary
to create appropriate boundaries to assist in meeting the criteria in
Section 807.D.

In this case, the modified boundary will still include the full width of each of the
seven lots within the HP overlay, as well as the primary historic building on each
lot, therefore the guidelines above have generally been met. However, the
reduction in lot size and increased proximity to much larger scale new
construction constitutes an adverse effect on the historic properties. To mitigate
this adverse effect, HP staff recommends that perpetual conservation
easements be granted to the City on all seven historic properties. This will
ensure the long-term preservation of the historic homes beyond the one-year
stay of demolition currently provided under the HP zoning. The perpetual
easement is addressed in Stipulation No. 2.

STUDIES AND POLICIES
11. Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning District
The subject site is located
within the Neighborhood
Conservation Plan for the
Coronado Neighborhood (the
“Coronado Neighborhood
Special Planning District”)
(CNSPD) which was adopted
in 1986. The CNSPD includes
both regulatory requirements
and policy guidance for how
requests should be evaluated.



Proposed Land Use Map, CNSPD;
Source: Planning and Development
Department.




Page 285
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


12. Policy Guidance: The non-regulatory “proposed land use map” depicts the
subject site with the following categories: single-family (for the seven single-
family homes), office and commercial along McDowell Road, medium to high
density multifamily, single-family and low density multifamily, and
commercial/multifamily revitalization area.

The non-regulatory areas
allowing case by case
consideration of rezoning
depicts only a portion of the
subject site being appropriate
for rezoning.

Both maps are deployed in
concert with narrative
guidance on the evaluation Areas allowing case by case consideration of rezoning,
criteria that should be used to CNSPD; Source: Planning and Development
Department.
consider redevelopment
projects. Of these, it specifies
that commercial projects should have major street access only, should focus on
design compatibility, that mixed-use projects should be encouraged, and that
underground parking should be encouraged in new commercial developments.

13. Regulatory Requirements: The CNSPD includes the following regulatory
requirements for multifamily projects:
• Setback regime for properties identified as “Revitalization Area” on the
Proposed Land Use Map. Only a portion at the center of the subject site
adjacent to Dayton Street is identified as “Revitalization Area”. The
regulatory provisions apply only when adjacent to a single-family home or
homes. At the location, the subject site is not adjacent to residential, and
the provision therefore does not apply.
• Height restriction of 48 feet. The development proposal for a maximum
height of 80 feet exceeds this standard; however, the use of “height
zones” provides certainty that areas immediately adjacent to off-site
single-family residential properties will be adjacent to structures with a
maximum height of 20 feet.
• Minimum parking requirement of two spaces per dwelling unit. The
development proposal includes alternative requirements (1 space per
studio unit, 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom units, and 1.7 spaces for two-
bedroom units).

14. Companion Case: Rezoning Case No. Z-15-22-4 is a proposed Amendment to
the regulatory requirements of the Coronado Neighborhood Special Planning
District (CNSPD) and the proposal is analyzed in a separate staff report. The
request proposes to exempt the subject site from the regulatory provisions
contained in the CNSPD on the basis that the proposal achieves the intent of
providing compatible and mixed-use development at a perimeter location in the
study area. If both actions, Z-2-22-4 and Z-15-22-4, are approved, the subject
Page 286
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


site would remain in the CNSPD and would be governed by the provisions
contained in the PUD.

15. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. The development narrative incorporates standards for bicycle
parking and storage for both residents and visitors.

16. 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 incorporates
standards for shaded and detached sidewalks on each of its street frontage and
a public pedestrian paseo bisecting the site east-west to provide an off-street
pathway. The Street Transportation Department is also requiring the developer
place $115,000 in escrow for the installation of a traffic control device that will
support greater pedestrian safety between the project and the hospital campus
to the south. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 6.

17. 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. The development narrative incorporates
standards to require shaded and detached sidewalks along each of its public
street frontages.

18. 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 development narrative states that the property
management will recycle with the City of Phoenix, and encourage residents to
recycle by providing recycling receptacles and chutes in each trash room.




Page 287
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
19. At the time this staff report was written, staff had received six e-mails / letters in
opposition to the request and 10 e-mails / letters in support. Copies of the
correspondence are attached to this report.

Staff has also participated in several community discussions led by the Council
District 4 office in the summer and fall of 2022. A mix of residents both in support
and opposition to the request participated in the discussions. Residents in
support noted the activation of the underutilized site and the possibility of retail,
restaurants or services on the ground floor as favorable aspects of the project.
Residents in opposition articulated concerns with traffic, the proposed building
height and the project’s design as some of their primary objections.

In response to those concerns, the applicant made modifications to the proposal
lowering the maximum building height along Dayton to 48 feet and the maximum
building height along Coronado to 20 feet. Stipulation No. 3 has been included
to provide the community another opportunity to review and provide comments
on the project’s design when it proceeds through the development review
process. Stipulation No. 9 requires the developer to work with the Street
Transportation Department to install speed humps on Dayton Street between
McDowell and Coronado roads as a means of mitigating any potential traffic
impacts from the development.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
20. The Street Transportation Department provided a series of stipulations focused
on the following topics with the applicable stipulation in parentheses:
• Right-of-way dedication of 40 feet along McDowell Road with a minimum
four-foot sidewalk easement (Stipulation No. 4).
• All sidewalks shall be entirely located within a sidewalk easement or
public right-of-way (Stipulation No. 5).
• Require $115,000 be placed in escrow for the installation of a traffic
control device, along McDowell Road (Stipulation No. 6).
• Traffic impact study shall be completed and that the applicant fund
mitigation measures (Stipulation No. 7).
• The developer shall construct all street improvements related to the
development with all required elements and to ADA accessibility
standards (Stipulation No. 8).

21. 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.

22. The Water Services Department commented that the site has existing water and
sewer mains that can serve the development. The department added their
standard comment that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over

Page 288
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


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.

OTHER
23. The site is within Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) traffic pattern
airspace. The Aviation Department requires the developer to record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence
and operational characteristics of (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the
property. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.

24. 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. 11.

25. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution
in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required
by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 12.

26. 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 PUD provides a regulatory framework that will allow for the
redevelopment of an underutilized site across the street from a major employer to
develop with a mix of uses and housing types.

2. The proposal calls for the preservation and integration of seven historically
designated single-family homes into the project.

3. The PUD’s development standards will provide for an enhanced and shaded
streetscape on all four streets and a concentration of the tallest building heights
near McDowell Road.




Page 289
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the 11th Street and McDowell 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 December 23, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Page 10, Permitted Uses, Mixed-Use Residential / Commercial Land Use
Category: Modify the requirement for a minimum square footage of
commercial to read as follows:

Shall provide a minimum of 5,000 square feet non-residential uses. Non-
residential uses shall not include, lobby, exercise, receptions areas, or
other similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All non-
residential uses shall have their primary access from perimeter rights-of-
way.

b. Page 12, Landscape Standards, Streetscape – Adjacent to Public Right-of
-Way: Add a section to the table that contains the following standards:

All streetscapes shall provide a detached sidewalk and a landscape strip.
Standards for the detached sidewalks and landscape strips are as
follows:

• McDowell Road
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 11 feet
• 11th Street (South of the paseo)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet
• Dayton Street (South, within 225 feet of McDowell Road)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet
• Dayton Street (North, 225 feet north of McDowell Road)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet
• Coronado Road
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and
sidewalk: 6 feet


Page 290
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


c. Page 16, Landscape Standards, Minimum Open Space: Add the
following language to this section:

The paseo shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and provide for a
continuous pedestrian connection between 11th Street and Dayton
Street. Entry points for the paseo shall be provided at both 11th Street
and Dayton Street per the Circulation Plan (Exhibit 12).

d. Page 25, Sustainability, City Enforced Standards: Modify the standard
related to electric vehicle charging stations to read as follows:

A minimum of 20 Level 1 electric vehicle charging stations shall be
provided within the parking garage.

2. Perpetual conservation easements, in accordance with the requirements of the
City’s Historic Preservation Office, shall be recorded on the following properties
(which constitute a portion of this site): 1622 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-
014A); 1626 North 11th Street APN 117-25-015); 1630 North 11th Street (APN
117-25-016; 1634 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-017); 1638 North 11th Street
(APN 117-25-018); 1642 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-019); and 1646 North
11th Street (APN 117-25-020), with modified boundaries consistent with the HP
zoning overlay boundary adjustment.

3. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer will present updated
building elevations for the seven-story portion of the development to the Encanto
Village Planning Committee for informational purposes only and to provide
review and comment. The intent of this meeting is to inform the committee as to
how the developer has enhanced the visual presence of the building via the
following architectural features:
• Use of color
• Material changes
• Artistic elements and murals on the ground floor

The elevations shall be consistent with the conceptual elevations (Exhibit 10) in
the PUD Narrative dated stamped December 23, 2022, or consistent with the
conceptual renderings date stamped December 30, 2022, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

4. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 40-foot of right-of-way and minimum 4-
foot-wide sidewalk easement along the north side of McDowell Road, as
approved by the Planning and Development and Street Transportation
departments.

5. All minimum streetscape requirements within the PUD Narrative shall be
completely located within right-of-way or appropriate sidewalk easement, as
modified and approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation departments.


Page 291
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


6. The developer shall provide $115,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device
along McDowell Road prior to preliminary site plan approval and as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.

7. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all
mitigation identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall
be granted until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

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

9. The developer shall work with the Street Transportation Department, Traffic
Services Division, for the application submission for speed hump/s along Dayton
Street between McDowell Road and Coronado Road, prior to preliminary site
plan approval. Improvements are subject to public petitioning approval per the
Speed Hump Program requirements from all property owners on the west and
east side of Dayton Street from McDowell Road to Coronado Road. The
developer shall be responsible for providing all funding of such improvements
prior to requesting certificate of occupancy.

10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International 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.

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.




Page 292
Staff Report: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
January 6, 2023


Writer
Joshua Bednarek
January 6, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Renderings date stamped December 30, 2022 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (22 pages)
11th Street and McDowell PUD Narrative date stamped December 23, 2022




Page 293
DAYTON ST
MITCHELL ST
R-3 HP R1-6 HP
GRANADA RD



11TH ST
Coronado
R-3A* Neighborhood SPD
HP CORONADO RD
Z-76-82
Z-135-99
R-3A*
Z-77-82
R1-6
P-1*
Z-135-99


10TH ST 12TH ST
P-1 ALMERIA RD
P-1* R-3 PUD * R-3
Z-141-72 Z-43-20

C-2 C-2 HP
C-2 C-2
MCDOWELL RD
PUD *
Z-SP-18-79
Z-SP-4-82

9TH ST
Z-SP-61-96
Z-5-97
Z-95-16
Z-75-17
Z-76-17
BRILL ST Z-31-18
Z-63-18


IMiles
Gr a
nd C
an al



INDIAN SCHOOL RD


0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
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



Z-2-22

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Ed McCoy, Fairfield Residential
FROM:
C-2 CNSPD( 1.53 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
1/18/2022 P-1 CNSPD ( 1.40 a.c.)
Z-2-22 REVISION DATES:
R1-6 HP CNSPD( 1.49 a.c.)
4/15/2022 1/6/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET R-3A CNSPD ( 0.74 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
PUD CNSPD ( 4.05 a.c.)
5.16 Acres QS 13-29 G-8 TO:
PUD CNSPD HP ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 CNSPD, P-1 CNSPD, R1-6 HP CNSPD, R-3A CNSPD 22, N/A, 8, 16 26, N/A, 9, 19
PUD CNSPD, PUD CNSPD HP 271, 7 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\2022\Z-2-22.mxd
Page 294
DAYTON ST
MITCHELL ST
R-3 HP R1-6 HP
GRANADA RD



11TH ST
Coronado
R-3A* Neighborhood SPD
HP CORONADO RD
Z-76-82
Z-135-99
R-3A*
Z-77-82
R1-6
P-1*
Z-135-99


10TH ST 12TH ST
P-1 ALMERIA RD
P-1* R-3 PUD * R-3
Z-141-72 Z-43-20

C-2 C-2 HP
C-2 C-2
MCDOWELL RD
PUD *
Z-SP-18-79
Z-SP-4-82

9TH ST
Z-SP-61-96
Z-5-97
Z-95-16
Z-75-17
Z-76-17
BRILL ST Z-31-18
Z-63-18


IMiles
Gr a
nd C
an al



INDIAN SCHOOL RD


0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
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



Z-2-22

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Ed McCoy, Fairfield Residential
FROM:
C-2 CNSPD( 1.53 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
1/18/2022 P-1 CNSPD ( 1.40 a.c.)
Z-2-22 REVISION DATES:
R1-6 HP CNSPD( 1.49 a.c.)
4/15/2022 1/6/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET R-3A CNSPD ( 0.74 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
PUD CNSPD ( 4.05 a.c.)
5.16 Acres QS 13-29 G-8 TO:
PUD CNSPD HP ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 CNSPD, P-1 CNSPD, R1-6 HP CNSPD, R-3A CNSPD 22, N/A, 8, 16 26, N/A, 9, 19
PUD CNSPD, PUD CNSPD HP 271, 7 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\2022\Z-2-22.mxd
Page 295
11th & McDowell – Multifamily
(Mixed-Use) Community
View from the intersection of Dayton St.
and McDowell Rd. (northeast corner)




Page 296
11th & McDowell – Multifamily
(Mixed-Use) Community
View from Dayton St. looking south to
McDowell Rd.




Page 297
Nick Klimek

Subject: Mixed Use @ NWC McDowell and 11th



From: Brandon Gonzalez
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 6:24 PM
To: Kurt Waldier
Cc: Gregory Bench
Subject: Mixed Use @ NWC McDowell and 11th

Hi Kurt,

I received information that was provided regarding the proposed development at 11th Street and McDowell. I live at
2529 N. 10th Street in Coronado and I'm unfortunately not going to be able to make the meeting on the 20th. I'm an
urban planner and am quite familiar with leading public meetings, so I wanted to be a voice in support of the
development in our neighborhood since public meetings can sometimes be dominated by opposition.

A few reasons for my support:

 Infill development and density is badly needed in central Phoenix and it's important that we locate density in the
right areas. The McDowell corridor is one of those opportunities for redevelopment and infill, and this type of
development benefits the revitalization efforts along McDowell.
 10th Street is a key bicycle corridor, with a bike/ped bridge over I-10 located just to the south of the proposed
location. This corridor provides easy bicycle access into downtown Phoenix. I bike this way frequently, and the
proposed density provides an opportunity to leverage additional bicycle trips by being located on a bicycle-
friendly corridor.
 The development is located along an existing bus route.
 Height is being designed to occur near McDowell, away from the single-family areas along Coronado Road, with
townhomes as a nice buffer/transition into the SF zone.
 While I live in a single-family home, we need housing options in our neighborhood, including quality apartments
and townhomes. We should be a life-cycle neighborhood with diverse housing options.

I'm not able to tell from the site plan, but my primary request would be to please give attention to the street design
around this development. It is important that sidewalk design creates a comfortable pedestrian experience that can set
the standard for additional redevelopment in this immediate area. If a buffer or separation from the back of curb isn't
able to be included, then hopefully the sidewalk/pedestrian zone will be significantly wide. Also, shade/tree cover is
extremely important with the south-facing nature along McDowell. Adding tree cover isn't only an important Phoenix
initiative, but it's also extremely important to Coronado residents. Additionally, bicycle parking as a street amenity
would be a nice addition near retail.

Thank you again for allowing me to provide input and I look forward to continued updates.

Brandon Gonzalez
2529 N. 10th Street, Phoenix.
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.





Page 298
From: John Stinson
To: kwaldier@beusgilbert.com; Nick Klimek
Cc: Laura Hahn
Subject: Writing in support of the applicant to amend zoning ordinance (Application #s Z-2-22)
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 2:52:53 PM


Mr. Waldier, Mr. Klimek –

My spouse (on CC) and I are writing to express our enthusiastic support of the proposed rezoning
(case number Z-2-22) of the northwest corner of 11th St and McDowell Road. We are residents of
the Coronado Historic District and have watched property values skyrocket in the face of restrictive
land use policies and lack of new housing inventory. Housing supply constraints are pricing out
young families and erecting a permanent barrier to housing affordability in our neighborhood –
something needs to change.

Central Phoenix - including and especially its historic neighborhoods - needs to add quality housing
stock and provide families the opportunity to access housing that is affordable and centrally located
in a walkable, safe neighborhood. To that extent, we would be thrilled to see a blighted corner of our
neighborhood revitalized with residential and commercial offerings, and to one day call the future
residents of this development our neighbors. I hope the city will make the necessary adjustments
and accommodate this proposal so the developers can break ground as soon as possible.

We are unable to attend the meeting on the 20th due to a family commitment out of town but
please don’t hesitate to reach out if you need any other form of support. My cell is 917-664-4992.

Best,

John Stinson + Laura Hahn
1533 E Granada Road
Phoenix AZ 85006




John Stinson | Vice President, US Consulting Operations





112 N Central Avenue, Ste 408 | Phoenix | AZ | 85004
p: +1 646 395 9347 | f: 212.838.9175
e: jstinson@guidepoint.com

New York | Boston | Phoenix | San Francisco | London | Dusseldorf | Athens | Dubai | Mumbai | Singapore | Hong Kong | Shanghai |
Seoul | Tokyo | Sydney

This e-mail message, and any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity identified in the alias address of this
message and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and subject to legal restrictions and penalties regarding its
unauthorized disclosure and use. Any unauthorized review, copying, disclosure, distribution or use is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message, and any
attachments, from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
##azfullsig2021##




Page 299
Nick Klimek

Subject: FW: 11st/McDowell



----Original Message-----
From: Will Novak
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Kurt Waldier
Subject: 11st/McDowell

(Please forward the below to the village planner/appropriate places)

Hello,

My wife and I have been home owners in the Coronado Historic neighborhood since 2013. We are very excited about
the proposed development on approximately 11th st and McDowell which will bring new neighbors, friends and retail
to our neighborhood. I’m a past member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee, sat on the ReInvent Phoenix
Midtown Steering Committee and was on the committee to write the “Preserve Phoenix” historic preservation plan. I
mention all this to highlight I’ve long been involved and passionate on matters of zoning and planning in central
Phoenix.

The proposed development is exactly the type of development the community has long told the city we’d like to see. It
increases density, brings in new retail and does it near existing services, infrastructure and transit. In addition the
project is replacing a dilapidated, under used old office building and surface parking lot that have a very suburban
design. This proposal will help support all the restaurants, coffee shops and other independent retailers that have
sprung up in and around Coronado over the last few years.

We are neighbors for more neighbors and welcome this project.

Yours,

- Will & Veronica Novak

602 541 1834

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.





Page 300
Nick Klimek

Subject: FW: Letter of support for the project on 11th Street and McDowell
Attachments: CNSPD Rezoning Z-15-22 Notification Letter 2022 04 01.pdf


-----Original Message-----
From: Kayla Tarantino
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:00 PM
To: Kurt Waldier ; nick.klimek@phoenix.gov
Subject: Letter of support for the project on 11th Street and McDowell

Hi there,

Writing you as a resident of Coronado living at 13th street and Palm. I support the project and I am excited to see the
land developed into something useful.

I do hope you’ll consider the feedback of some neighbors here around increasing parking availability per unit, and doing
what you can to maintain the charm and character of our neighborhood.

Thank you,
Kayla Tarantino

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.





Page 301
Nick Klimek

Subject: Project at 11th street and McDowell



From: Michael Boysen
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Kurt Waldier
Subject: Project at 11th street and McDowell

Hello Mr. Waldier,
Just wanted to let you know that my wife and I both support the proposed residential project at 11th street and
McDowell. We own and live in our home at 1506 E Granada Rd in the Coronado neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Michael and Tracey Boysen

Get Outlook for iOS [linkprotect.cudasvc.com]
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.





Page 302
Nick Klimek

Subject: Residential project 11st street and McDowell



From: Melissa McIver
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 12:19 PM
To: Kurt Waldier ; nick.klimek@phoenix.gov
Subject: Residential project 11st street and McDowell

Just wanted to write a note to say I am excited about your proposed project and support it 100%! I think it was be great
for Coronado neighborhood and would freshen up that whole unused area!

Melissa McIver
Coronado resident since 2017
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.





Page 303
From: Emily Giannone
To: Council District 4
Cc: Nick Klimek
Subject: Support for 11th St. & McDowell Rd. Mixed-Use Community Project
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 7:12:26 PM




Dear Vice Mayor Pastor,

My husband and I have been residents of the Coronado Historic District for the past 12 years, homeowners in the
neighborhood for 11 years. I was not able to attend your meeting on Monday, but I wanted to make sure you know
my husband and I voice our strong support for Fairfield’s 11th St. & McDowell Rd. Mixed-Use Community Project.

We believe the project will provide numerous benefits for the neighborhood and surrounding community and is a far
better option than the current vacant Surgicenter and parking lot. Specifically, the project will:

Revitalize a vacant and abandoned lot and enhance walkability in the neighborhood,

Activate McDowell Road with street level retail,

Preserve the seven historic homes along 11th Street and uphold the character and charm of Coronado, and

Provide quality attainable and diverse housing to phoenix residents.

I understand a few loud voices have opposed the project but there are many Coronado homeowners who support this
project. Fairfield has done an admirable job of working with the community over quite some time to deliver a
project that aligns with our wants and needs. I hope this show of support will be taken into consideration during the
Encanto Village planning committee hearing in August. Thank you.

Regards,
Emily Giannone

Sent from my iPhone




Page 304
From: Cindy Sponaugle
To: Council District 4; Nick Klimek
Subject: Support for the McDDowell Rd / 11th Str mixed use project
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:38:33 PM


Vice Mayor Pastor, Nick Klimek
I wanted to let you know that I am in favor of the mixed use project planned for the McDowell Rd /
11th Str. area.
I am anxious for this new project to help add a new feel/vigor to the McDowell corridor, in hopes
that it draws even more investment along the street.
The Coronado historic district, I think, will benefit by having the new retail shops in this project with
new shopping options. This also seems to support the Banner Hospital Community with housing
close to campus, and shops to frequent.
Thanks

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




Page 305
From: Kurt Waldier
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: FW: PUD Zoning Case Z-2-22
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 2:59:03 PM




FYI. See comments from John Fricks below regarding 11th St and McDowell.

Kurt Waldier, AICP
Planning Consultant
BEUS GILBERT MCGRODER PLLC
701 North 44th Street | Phoenix, AZ 85008
Direct: 480.429.3061 | Main: 480.429.3000 | Fax: 480.429.3100
Email: kwaldier@beusgilbert.com
Assistant: Chrystal Fisher | 480.429.3121 | cfisher@beusgilbert.com

-----Original Message-----
From: john fricks
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 11:53 AM
To: council.district.4@phoenix.gov
Cc: Kurt Waldier
Subject: PUD Zoning Case Z-2-22

Dear Vice Mayor Pastor,

I am writing concerning the development proposed for 11th Street and McDowell. First, let me note that I live at
and co-own (with my wife) the house at 1135 E Coronado Rd, which is approximately six or seven houses down
from the corner of this proposed development. I am strongly in favor of this development and am disappointed with
the recent changes proposed. Specifically, I am opposed to the reduction in housing units, especially given the rapid
rise in rents and housing prices in Phoenix. I am also against the increased parking spaces per unit—as this space
could possibly be better used to provide more housing units. I believe Phoenix and the Coronado neighborhood
should be a welcoming environment, and I would like to start by welcoming a lot of new neighbors.

The new plan also swaps out townhouses for a dog park and a parking lot. The dog park seems fine; however, I am
adamantly opposed to having a parking lot on Coronado Rd, and I would like to see all of the parking lots on that
stretch of Coronado Rd. replaced by townhouses, but I definitely don’t want to have another parking lot which
creates an unsociable environment in the neighborhood.

A neighborhood concern that I have—that I hope this project will help with—is the rampant speeding and reckless
driving along Coronado Rd between 10th and 12th streets. I think this happens because the road is very wide
through this section, and there are few cars parked along the streets. (Parked cars narrow the road, causing drivers
to slow down.) I hope that the city will address this issue with speed bumps and/or traffic circles as this new
development is built.

Lastly, I have tried to keep track of this development as it moves through the process, but there have been numerous
cancelled planning meeting for Encanto, and attending these meetings is very time consuming. I think that the
process tends to favor the voices against new development, and I hope that there are some ideas about changing the
process to make it more inclusive of everyone in the community.

Sincerely,
John Fricks
814-777-6882

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.




Page 306
Page 307
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Comment in support of 11th Street/McDowell rezoning request (case numbers Z-2-22 and Z-15-22)
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 4:29:47 PM



From: John Stinson
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 9:43 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Comment in support of 11th Street/McDowell rezoning request (case numbers Z-2-22 and
Z-15-22)

To whom it may concern:

Ahead of the Encanto Village Planning Committee meeting on January 9th, I would like to submit a
comment on case numbers Z-2-22 and Z-15-22. As a resident of the Coronado neighborhood and a
daily user of the streets and intersections that the proposed building will occupy, I want to voice my
strong support for this project. I believe it is in the interests of the Coronado neighborhood, as well
as the city more broadly, to approve the amendment requests and permit this mixed-use
development to proceed. We desperately need more housing supply in this area and this project,
which will workforce housing, will boost that supply and help to moderate increasing rents in the
area. Furthermore, it will help to catalyze development in the neighborhood and provide for more
eyes on the street, a safer, more walkable environment for our families, and increased commercial
options for neighbors and visitors. I speak as a private citizen, but as an employer in downtown
Phoenix whose employees would directly benefit from increased access to housing at the price point
for this project, I feel compelled to speak on behalf of those who desperately want more housing
supply to slow the recent growth in market rental prices.

I have been in contact with the developers who are spearheading this project and would also like to
commend them for taking so much community input into account during their design process. This
project is better off for it and I believe their approach to gathering and implementing community
input has set the standard. We would benefit immensely from this project.

Best,

John




John Stinson | Senior Vice President, US Consulting Operations





112 N Central Avenue, Ste 408 | Phoenix | AZ | 85004
p: +1 646 395 9347 | f: 212.838.9175
e: jstinson@guidepoint.com

[us.content.exclaimer.net]




New York | Boston | Phoenix | San Francisco | London | Dusseldorf | Athens | Dubai | Mumbai | Singapore | Hong Kong | Shanghai |
Seoul | Tokyo | Sydney

This e-mail message, and any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity identified in the alias address of this




Page 308
message and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and subject to legal restrictions and penalties regarding its
unauthorized disclosure and use. Any unauthorized review, copying, disclosure, distribution or use is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message, and any
attachments, from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
##azfullsig2021##




Page 309
From: Phil Dague
To: kwaldier@beusgilbert.com; Nick Klimek
Cc: Phil Dague
Subject: 11th & McDowell PUD Case Z-2-22
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 8:16:24 PM




Hi Kurt and Nick-

My name is Phil Dague and I live at 2214 N Dayton Street, Phoenix. I live just two blocks north of the proposed
development, which I received your notice for regarding zoning variances.

I’m not opposed to the development overall. However, I do have one significant concern that I would like to raise
that I am strongly opposed to, which is the parking ratio variance of 1.25 vs. 2 spaces per unit that is required per
current zoning.

Dayton Street is a narrow street that dead ends into the main entrance of Banner University Medical Center.
Currently the street is already overcrowded with parked cars on both sides of the street that does not allow for
opposing traffic to pass on the road without one car yielding to the other. By limiting parking to just over one space
per unit I am very concerned that residents, visitors, future tenants visiting leasing office, employees, and retail
customers will be forced to seek street parking in the neighborhood. 1.25 spaces per unit simply won’t be enough
parking for a development of this size in a city where most people rely on cars for transportation, without adding to
an already crowded streets in the Coronado neighborhood making it unsafe and impractical to drive up and down.

In addition, with the entrance to Banner University Medical Center just across the street, the entrance to the garage
on Dayton will further exacerbate congestion at the intersection and make it difficult to enter and exit the
neighborhood on Dayton. I’d like to understand if there is any proposed traffic control for Dayton, like a traffic
light?

I have forwarded this notice to neighbors and have shared my concerns with them and asked for them to voice this
concern as well. I will send this same information to the address in the letter to ensure my concerns are heard by the
Encanto Village meeting.

Furthermore, I am the Executive Director of Facilities Operations for Banner Health. While this email represents my
concerns as a homeowner and I am not speaking for Banner Health, I will be forwarding the notice to Banner Health
Administration at Banner University Medical Center as well as our Development leadership who I report directly to
for their review and consideration as I believe they will share similar concerns due to the already constrained
parking on the medical center campus creating the likelihood for visitors and residents of the proposed development
to park on our campus and potential issues with traffic control at the Dayton/McDowell intersection.

Again, I am not opposed to the development but the parking and entrance to parking are concerns and I do not
believe a zoning variance should be provided for the reduction in parking requirements. I live in a new home built in
2018 in Coronado, plan to live here a long time. I want to see the neighborhood continue to develop and thrive.
Multi-family developments are no doubt part of the urban development and add to the economic diversity of urban
neighborhoods like Coronado that make cities like Phoenix a great place to live but with our limited public
transportation, there must be adequate parking to support a development of this magnitude.

Thank you,
Phil

Phil Dague
2214 N Dayton Street
Phoenix, AZ 85006




Page 310
RE: Rezoning Case Nos. Z-2-22-4 (11th and McDowell PUD) and Z-15-22-4



I am writing to express my opposition to this proposed attack on a Phoenix
Historic Neighborhood. I believe the incompatible rezoning requests would be
very harmful and destructive to our neighborhood as it now exists. The residents
of Coronado chose this location because of the serenity and character that now
exists. I also believe it provides a very slippery slope to further destruction of our
historic neighborhoods at the request of greedy land owners and developers
seeking profit at the residents of Coronado’s expense. It is quite evident that the
with its horrible setback and parking issues as evidenced by all the high rise
developments with no street setbacks. It is shameful.

Specifically, the 7 existing homeowners on 11th Street are going to be most
severely damaged with the loss of privacy, serenity and loss of home value. No
one wants high rise apartments in their backyards! The proposed height is not
acceptable in a single family home neighborhood.

The proposed setback of 10 feet is ridiculous and completely contrary to existing
zoning and the nature of Coronado homes.

The lack of parking (1.25) per unit is also a horrible precedent which will only
result in massive on street parking, increased crime and pollution. Most couples
own two cars in Phoenix and thus will have no other choice.

The increase in neighborhood traffic will substantially harm my property on East
Coronado Road, which happens to be one of the few remaining cement streets
which the neighbors fought for in prior years to maintain. Already drivers short
cut from McDowell to Coronado east to 7th St. The home on the west side of 10th
Street will face the oncoming new traffic on Coronado Rd directly into their home.
This new project will only exacerbate the problem with increased traffic and
disruption to a quiet neighborhood.




Page 311
While I realize growth is necessary in Phoenix, I question the attack on a
Designated Historic District that is protected from the greed of developers. That
is why the designation was made in the first place to protect our city heritage. If
the grossness of the size of this proposed project is intended to encourage a
compromise I find it deceitful. I vehemently oppose this development and hope
the owners realize what a disgrace it is! Please SAVE our Historic Neighborhood.



Sincerely,

Rick Krussman




Page 312
From: Sheila Krueger
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: EVPC Z-2-22-4 and (Companion Case Z-15-22-4)
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2022 10:55:12 PM


Mr. Klimek:
I would like the following to be read into the record at the ENCANTO VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMITTEE, set for May 2nd at 6:15 pm.

As a homeowner in the Coronado Historic Neighborhood for over 12 years, I have seen many
proposals for properties along McDowell Road presented. Additionally, my neighbors have
banded together on several occasions to make sure that our neighborhood is able to preserve
its important heritage and maintain the safety of our community.

When the SurgiCenter was originally built, the neighbors who came before us insisted that the
area surrounding that new enterprise would not become prone to encroachment because of the
variances granted for the business. For that same family to return to the neighborhood and to
the City to request that those restrictions be removed for the EXACT purpose they were
intended is insulting to everyone who has ever lived in the neighborhood.

In my opinion, these proposals should not even be given consideration that would lead to any
type of development (as currently proposed) on this property. However, knowing that we most
likely will be expending a lot of energy in opposition to this project to protect our
neighborhood, it seems appropriate to discuss the issues surrounding this project.

No doubt you will hear many of the same arguments from other neighbors, as I know I am not
alone in this. I apologize if our concerns overlap, but also hope that you will see that as a
streak of common sense. I will not discuss my objections to the design (horrible and way too
tall), the parking, nor the loss of open space behind seven historic homes. Others more versed
in the architectural aspects of this proposal are prepared to speak to those points.

I would like to counter the discussions I have heard from proponents and participants of this
project.

Phoenix Needs Affordable Housing: Those who are crying out for more housing in the
Phoenix area are not equally clamoring for AFFORDABLE housing. The prices proposed for
even a studio apartment in this complex exceeds the budget of a housekeeper or Nursing
Assistant at Banner University Hospital. Adding expensive housing solely to increase
inventory and then hoping for affordable housing becoming available is a laughable real estate
version of trickle down theory.

Banner Hospital is tall, so this is just a step down: The Banner campus is a commercial
enterprise that does NOT sit in the boundaries of the Historic District. Using the height of that
building to justify a behemoth of a building IN a Historic District is comparing apples to
oranges.

Reducing parking requirements will cause people to commute effectively: The request for
a reduction in parking requirements is also an insult to our neighborhood. Based on the pricing
of these units, I doubt that the majority of them will be single occupancy units. As I walk the
neighborhood daily, I can assure you that 2-3 vehicles in the driveway is the rule, NOT the



Page 313
exception. Those cars exist and will not be sold simply because someone moves into a
particular housing situation. And if those cars don't have a space ON property, they will be
parked deep into the neighborhood. With many young families, this presents an additional
safety hazard. Wishing that families would have one vehicle and use earth-friendly
transportation doesn't make it so. The property is not within a sustainable walking distance to
the light rail in the Arizona climate.

In summary, my belief is that the Special Planning District was created for a purpose, and to
change that purpose makes the work of the City highly suspect. I respectfully request that the
Encanto Village Planning Committee consider the original SPD as an immovable and
unchangeable object, as it was meant to stop these very types of projects.

Thank you,
Sheila Krueger
2041 N Dayton Street
Phoenix, AZ 85006




Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
From: Sheila Krueger
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Fwd: EVPC Z-2-22-4 and (Companion Case Z-15-22-4)
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2022 10:59:21 PM


Ms. Stockham:
I received a notice that Mr. Klimek is out of the office until 5/9, which is past the meeting
where I had requested this letter to be read. I do hope that you will be able to facilitate the
inclusion of my note in this meeting. Thank you. Sheila Krueger
************


Mr. Klimek:
I would like the following to be read into the record at the ENCANTO VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMITTEE, set for May 2nd at 6:15 pm.

As a homeowner in the Coronado Historic Neighborhood for over 12 years, I have seen many
proposals for properties along McDowell Road presented. Additionally, my neighbors have
banded together on several occasions to make sure that our neighborhood is able to preserve
its important heritage and maintain the safety of our community.

When the SurgiCenter was originally built, the neighbors who came before us insisted that the
area surrounding that new enterprise would not become prone to encroachment because of the
variances granted for the business. For that same family to return to the neighborhood and to
the City to request that those restrictions be removed for the EXACT purpose they were
intended is insulting to everyone who has ever lived in the neighborhood.

In my opinion, these proposals should not even be given consideration that would lead to any
type of development (as currently proposed) on this property. However, knowing that we most
likely will be expending a lot of energy in opposition to this project to protect our
neighborhood, it seems appropriate to discuss the issues surrounding this project.

No doubt you will hear many of the same arguments from other neighbors, as I know I am not
alone in this. I apologize if our concerns overlap, but also hope that you will see that as a
streak of common sense. I will not discuss my objections to the design (horrible and way too
tall), the parking, nor the loss of open space behind seven historic homes. Others more versed
in the architectural aspects of this proposal are prepared to speak to those points.

I would like to counter the discussions I have heard from proponents and participants of this
project.

Phoenix Needs Affordable Housing: Those who are crying out for more housing in the
Phoenix area are not equally clamoring for AFFORDABLE housing. The prices proposed for
even a studio apartment in this complex exceeds the budget of a housekeeper or Nursing
Assistant at Banner University Hospital. Adding expensive housing solely to increase
inventory and then hoping for affordable housing becoming available is a laughable real estate
version of trickle down theory.

Banner Hospital is tall, so this is just a step down: The Banner campus is a commercial
enterprise that does NOT sit in the boundaries of the Historic District. Using the height of that



Page 317
building to justify a behemoth of a building IN a Historic District is comparing apples to
oranges.

Reducing parking requirements will cause people to commute effectively: The request for
a reduction in parking requirements is also an insult to our neighborhood. Based on the pricing
of these units, I doubt that the majority of them will be single occupancy units. As I walk the
neighborhood daily, I can assure you that 2-3 vehicles in the driveway is the rule, NOT the
exception. Those cars exist and will not be sold simply because someone moves into a
particular housing situation. And if those cars don't have a space ON property, they will be
parked deep into the neighborhood. With many young families, this presents an additional
safety hazard. Wishing that families would have one vehicle and use earth-friendly
transportation doesn't make it so. The property is not within a sustainable walking distance to
the light rail in the Arizona climate.

In summary, my belief is that the Special Planning District was created for a purpose, and to
change that purpose makes the work of the City highly suspect. I respectfully request that the
Encanto Village Planning Committee consider the original SPD as an immovable and
unchangeable object, as it was meant to stop these very types of projects.

Thank you,
Sheila Krueger
2041 N Dayton Street
Phoenix, AZ 85006




Page 318
January 5, 2023

Encanto Village Planning committee
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
attn: Planner Nick Klimeck &
Sarah Stockman

RE: 11th and Mcdowell PUD - Z-2-22-4 (Companion Case Z-15-22-4):

Dear Committee,

My name is Artie A. Vigil III, I am a 17 year resident of the Coronado Historic District and reside at 2026 N
10th street, which is approximately two blocks from this site.

I am unable to attend the January 9th hearing I'll be on a plane at the time of the meeting and unable
to attend virtually or in person. Furthermore, it was my understanding that this first meeting was
informational only. The posting at the site as of December 30th is below. The various neighbors who
live adjacent to this property were told that the hearing for this case would not be until February.




This week, I received a letter stating that the dates and times have changed. Interested neighbors
have not received updates to the plans to review. I have not had a chance or opportunity to review
the PUD. I think many of the interested neighbors who are affected by this project deserve the time
and due diligence to understand what is within the PUD as written.

Therefore I'd like to request that this meeting on 1/9 only be informational as noted on the posting at the
site.

Thank you,



Arthur A. Vigil III, Coronado Resident




Page 319
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-2-22-4
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting May 2, 2022
Request From C-2 CNSPD, P-1 CNSPD, R1-6 HP, and R-3A CNSPD
Request To PUD CNSP and PUD CNSPD HP
Proposed Use Multifamily residential, retail use, and retention of the
historic single-family homes
Location Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 6 (Z-2-22-4) and Item No. 7 (Z-15-22-4) are companion cases and were heard
together. The items were heard out of order, after Item No. 3.

Committee member Ann Cothron joined during this item, bringing quorum to 12.

Six members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Gilbert, representing the applicant with Beus Gilbert McGroder, introduced himself
and the other associated parties in attendance. Mr. Gilbert then presented on the
context of the subject site, including its location and neighborhood context. Mr. Gilbert
displayed photos of the site including a vacant “surgicenter” and 7 historic single-family
homes. Mr. Gilbert then summarized the project’s prior community engagement; he next
introduced the site plan or a 301-unit multifamily project with ground-floor retail. Mr.
Gilbert then discussed: the Coronado Historic District and the preservation of existing
homes via a lot line adjustment, the Coronado Neighborhood Conservation plan with
regards to the project’s site-specific exemptions for multifamily development, and the
project’s size, height, and massing. Mr. Gilbert then introduced Craig Stoffel of Todd &
Associates to discuss architectural character and context, before referencing
suggestions taken from a local Coronado resident who is an architect. Mr. Gilbert
concluded the presentation by discussing traffic, parking, and housing affordability.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Opal Wagner asked staff about the precedent of amending a neighborhood
conservation plan. Ms. Stockham responded that she believes a conservation plan


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 320
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
May 2, 2022

might have been amended in the past but would be happy to look further into the topic.
Ms. Wagner also asked about the applicability Walkable Urban Code, as she found the
property to be exactly a mile from a light-rail station. Mr. Gilbert invited Kurt Waldier to
respond, who stated that some people may still choose to walk, or more likely bike, to
the light rail based on community response. Ms. Wagner then posed the idea of
underground parking, to which Ed McCoy with Fairfield Residential responded that
underground parking is not off the table and is actively being studied. Ms. Wagner lastly
commented that she prefers restoration rather than replacement with regards to
improvements to features of the site’s existing homes.

Matthew Jewett inquired about parking, both why the count seemed to be so high, and
whether the parking would be assigned, to which Mr. Gilbert responded that the project
is rather asking to reduce parking below that of the neighborhood conservation
standard, and that, yes, each unit would have assigned parking. Mr. Jewett next asked
who owned the property, to which Mr. Gilbert replied that the Reed Family owned the
property.

Drew Bryck commented on the use of WU [Walkable Urban] Code with regards to this
case, and that the committee should keep this in mind moving forward. Mr. Gilbert
replied that he believes the WU Code makes the project much better.

Ann Cothron asked if the housing units proposed are considered affordable. Mr. Gilbert
answered that the housing is not affordable housing in the traditional sense, but rather
that the project aims to provide employees at Banner Medical Center. He invited Lee
Busse, with the applicant’s team, to concur, who shared that the project offers multiple
housing types, of which the studio and 1-bedroom units will be priced at about 33% of
the income of hospital employees, for example. Ms. Cothron then asked about the
project’s LEED certification and shade coverage, to which Mr. Busse responded that
they have yet to address LEED certification, though they are keen on implementing
numerous sustainability features. Mr. Gilbert directed the question to Mr. Stoffel, who
added that the landscape concept is expected to provide 75% site shading. Ms. Cothron
then asked if the renderings of the McDowell frontage provided a canopy, to which Mr.
Stoffel clarified it was in fact a 12-foot arcade being shown in the rendering.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Phil Dague introduced himself as a member of the Coronado neighborhood. Mr. Dague
stated that he was not opposed to the project in general but had concerns with the
project’s limited parking as proposed; he believes it will make parking on Dayton Street
more crowded.

Robert Warnicke introduced himself and stated that he thinks the project is much too
high and much too dense, nor is it appropriate to apply the Walkable Urban Code. Mr.
Warnicke acknowledged the benefit of preserving homes but feels that the scale and
height is not appropriate. Mr. Warnicke added that underground parking may alleviate
this, and that he looks forward to working with the applicant.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 321
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
May 2, 2022



Artie Vigil shared that he has met with the developer and encouraged them to propose
a project that is more compatible with the Coronado Conservation Plan. Mr. Vigil does
not believe that the proposal is in scale with the Coronado neighborhood. Mr. Vigil cited
Roosevelt Square as a comparable project, and that the proposal is nearly twice as
dense and taller in height than Roosevelt Square.

Jennifer O’Conner introduced herself as a neighbor one block to the north of the
proposed project. She stated that the neighborhood is walkable within its residential
areas, but not necessarily on major arterials. She does not agree with the transition in
height from single-family homes and is concerned about the increase in traffic on
Dayton.

Dr. Donna Reiner introduced herself as a 20-year neighborhood resident. Dr. Reiner
reiterated that she is not against density necessarily, but bad projects. Dr. Reiner stated
that the density, mass, and height is too high and referenced a project in the Willo
neighborhood that she believed to be superior in comparison. She concluded that the
project should adhere to the Coronado Preservation Plan.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Steve Procaccini asked how much retail square footage is proposed. Mr. Stoffel
answered 5,000 square feet. Mr. Procaccini then asked about a left-only egress to
Dayton Street, as well as about electric vehicle charging. Mr. Gilbert responded that
they have yet to consider a left-turn only exit from Dayton and that 5% of the project’s
parking spaces will be dedicated to electric vehicle charging.

Vice Chair Rodriguez mentioned that both her and committee member GG George
had previously met with the applicant to provide suggestions.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 322
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-2-22-4

Date of VPC Meeting January 9, 2023
Request From C-2 CNSPD, P-1 CNSPD, R1-6 HP CNSPD, and R-3A
CNSPD
Request To PUD CNSPD and PUD CNSPD HP
Proposed Use Multifamily residential, retail use, and retention of the
historic single-family homes.
Location Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road
VPC Recommendation Approve, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-2-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

9 virtual speaker cards were received from members of the public with 2 donating their
time to other speakers. One speaker was registered in support and the other 8 in
opposition.

At this time, Committee Member Ann Cothron arrived bringing the quorum to 16
members (9 required for a quorum)

STAFF BACKGROUND PRESENTATION
Mr. Joshua Bednarek, staff, introduced the rezoning case and its companion case.
The items will be presented together but that separate motions are required for each
item. Rezoning Case No. Z-2-22-4 is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal for
271 dwelling units and the preservation and integration of 7 historically designated
homes. Rezoning Case No. Z-15-22-4 is a proposal to amend the Coronado
Neighborhood Special Planning District (CNSPD) which would provide a site specific
exception for the subject site. There has been a significant amount of public input on
this proposal including several community meetings organized by the District 4 Council
Office. Staff is recommending approval subject to several stipulations and, notably staff
is asking for direction from the committee in Stipulation No. 3 which would provide
direction between two architectural styles. He then stated that the Historic Preservation
Commission will consider the proposal on February 13, 2023, with regard to the
proposed amendment to the HP boundary.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 323
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

Committee Member Rick Mahrle noted that this site was previously reviewed by the
committee and asked if that was a separate proposal or an amendment to that proposal.
Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez responded that this applicant presented in the summer of
2022. Committee Member Paul Benjamin added that this is a PUD which requires two
hearings before the VPC with the first being for “Information Only.”

Committee Member Drew Bryck noted that there was correspondence from the
neighborhood stating that there was an error in the sign. Mr. Bednarek responded that
staff has verified that the posting requirements have been met.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Gilbert, of Beus Gilbert McGroder, and representing the applicant, provided
an overview of the project, the public engagement process, and stated that the applicant
team is in full agreement with the staff recommendation and stipulations. The site is a
vacant, deteriorating, and obsolete medical office at an ideal location for urban
redevelopment. The site is directly across McDowell Road from Banner University
Medical Center and the proposal has received a strong letter of support from the Miracle
Mile Corridor.

The site contains 7 historic homes and, if the rezoning proposal is approved, the homes
will be preserved under a 100 year preservation easement, maintain the protection of
the historic zoning overlay, and be upgraded with front yard landscaping, windows
repaired and/or replaced in a manner consistent with historic standards, front porches
stabilized and enhanced as needed, and roofs upgraded in a manner consistent with
historic standards as needed. The proposal would move the historic designation
boundary by approximately 38 feet to reduce the depth of the rear yards.

The proposed amendment to the CNSPD keeps the site within the plan area but
exempts the site from the following standards: to allow commercial access to local
roads; to allow an increase in building heights and a reduction in setbacks; and to allow
a decrease in the parking requirements. He then stated that the site specific exemptions
are appropriate because the project accomplishes many of the broader goals articulated
by the plan.

Mr. Ed McCoy, of Fairfield Residential, provided a brief history of how the project
evolved over time. Once Fairfield became involved in 2021, the development team
began working with the neighborhood and stakeholders and created a working group to
refine the project. In response to neighborhood input, there is now a single story
amenity building on Coronado Road, the northern building is now four stories with a
podium deck oriented to the west, the site has more parking, and the architecture has
been revised.

Mr. Paul Gilbert provided an overview of the two architectural options which arose from
conflicting opinions from the neighborhood. The committee has the option to select
which of the design approaches it feels is most appropriate. He then summarized the
proposal and rationale for approval.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 324
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023



QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Mahrle asked if retail parking will be entirely located within the
parking structure. Mr. Paul Gilbert confirmed. Committee Member Mahrle stated that
it is critically important that the parking lot on Coronado Road include spaces oriented
toward the apartments, so headlights do not shine into homes across Coronado Road.

Committee Member Jewett thanked the applicant team for including recycling and for
the paseo. He asked if there is on-street parking on one or both sides of Dayton Street
and requested more information regarding the traffic control device stipulated. He also
asked who owns the historic homes. Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that the residential homes
are owned by a separate owner and that these homes will not be owned by Fairfield
Residential. There will only be parking on one side of Dayton Street. The traffic control
device is intended to be a HAWK style crossing across McDowell Road; the applicant is
funding the device, but it will be designed by the Street Transportation Department.

Chair Opal Wagner commended the applicant for not trying to amend the CNSPD
because there are many conservation plans throughout the city and such a removal
could set a precedent.

Committee Member Randy Schiller asked how much guest parking will be provided in
the parking structure and whether solar will be added to the project. Mr. Paul Gilbert
stated that there are currently no plans for solar and that the parking calculations do not
include the parallel spaces on Dayton Street. Mr. Ed McCoy stated that the parking
structure will include unrestricted residential guest parking in the structure, resident
parking will be restricted to the top of the garage, and retail will be toward the bottom of
the garage.

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez asked if there are any design features to prevent
headlights in the Coronado Road parking lot from shining into apartment units. Mr.
Orion Pientak, from the applicant team, responded that there are some windows
planned along that building face but that headlights will be blocked by patios with low
walls and landscaping. Mr. Ed McCoy stated that the surface parking spaces are
intended to be utilized by the residents of those units.

Committee Member Ann Cothron thanked the applicant team for listening to
neighborhood and committee input and for adding both recycling and composting.
Further, she thanked the applicant team for the option of the architectural styles
because the site is in a historic area. She noted that there are some mature trees on the
site and asked the developer to preserve those trees. Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that they
plan to preserve the trees.

Committee Member Paul Benjamin asked if the Coronado Neighborhood Association
has taken a position on the proposal and if that is something they normally would. Mr.
Paul Gilbert stated that the Coronado Neighborhood Association does not take




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 325
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

positions on zoning cases although the applicant team has met with many of their board
members and other stakeholders.

Committee Member Stephen Procaccini stated that he is glad that the homes will be
preserved. He asked if they will be restored to the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation
guidelines. He asked if egress from the parking structure onto Dayton Street will be
physically restricted to left turn only. Mr. Gilbert responded that the conservation
easement requires adherence to the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation guidelines.
He stated that there are no plans for a physical restriction to limit right-turns onto Dayton
Street. Mr. Ed McCoy added that the egress will be permitted to turn either left or right
but that the traffic report indicates that more than 90 percent of the traffic will be left turn
egress.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dr. Donna Reiner stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for more than 20 years
and is a local historian. The purpose of the neighborhood association and the Coronado
Neighborhood Conservation Plan is to preserve the unique character of our
neighborhood. The developer was responsive to neighborhood comments with
alterations early in the process but, from the images shown tonight, some of those
alterations have disappeared. Height is a central concern since there is not a single
residential complex at a height of seven stories. The increase in height will set a
precedent for future proposals along McDowell Road. The preservation of the historic
homes is being misused as rationale for increased height beyond that permitted in the
conservation plan. The conservation plan was created in response to the former
surgicenter on the site, the removal of historic homes, and the encroachment of
commercial properties into the neighborhood. Neither architectural option is consistent
with those that were shown to the neighborhood and the traditional option cannot be
called “Spanish Revival.” She asked the committee to continue the rezoning case and
modify the design by making a good faith effort to satisfy the neighborhood’s desire for
a maximum height of 5 stories on McDowell Road.

Mr. Cody Castelletti stated that he lives nearby and has been working with Fairfield
Residential to help move the project to a design that would be more compatible with the
historic character of the neighborhood. He stated that he does not know why there are
now two designs options as no residents have requested a contemporary design. The
site is limited to 48 feet by the CNSPD and that an increase beyond that should offer a
benefit to the historic neighborhood. As proposed, the project does not go far enough
and, if the contemporary design is chosen, the height should be limited to 48 feet
because it is incompatible with the area.

Mr. Ryan Boyd introduced himself as a representative of the Urban Phoenix Project
and stated that he is supportive of a few elements, concerned with a few, and agnostic
on the aesthetic. He stated that any design should be pedestrian friendly with ground
floor units opening onto the street and a mix of uses to create a vibrant streetscape
environment. He stated that they are concerned with the push for additional parking on
the site. The CNSPD standard of 2 spaces per unit is extremely high and that Transit



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 326
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

Line 17 (McDowell Road) carries the 7th highest volume of any route within the system.
The site is on an arterial street with a high volume bus system and is therefore equipped
to handle density.

Mr. Robert Warnicke stated that the request is to break the CNSPD by exempting the
site from its regulatory provisions and cautioned that this is a slippery slope. The
argument that the historic homes are under threat and their preservation warrants
additional intensity is misleading. The proposal is higher and denser than most and is
not situated between the 7s where the city is trying to promote intensity.

Ms. Jennifer O’Connor expressed concern with the 80 foot height and stated that it
would set precedent in the neighborhood. She expressed concern with the intensity and
asked that the density be reduced further. She asked why the developer would
decrease the number of units and add parking. She expressed concern regarding
pedestrian safety and urged that the design of the street is an important factor in safety.

Ms. Nancy Giles stated that the developer has used certain concessions as a
justification for ignoring some items that are important to the neighborhood. She
expressed concern with the parking supply not adhering to the CNSPD. She stated that
a stated goal of the CNSPD is that housing should be “in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood.” The architecture is very important and deserves certainty beyond
two options. Further, she expressed skepticism regarding the assertion that most
neighbors prefer the contemporary design. The site specific exemption creates a
precedent for how future developers will circumvent a conservation plan. She expressed
concern over the proposed height and traffic impact on Dayton Street and 11th Street.
She echoed Ms. O’Connor’s concerns regarding traffic safety concerns, especially on
Dayton Street north of Coronado.

APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that he is disappointed to hear concerns about the lack of
communication. There have been four neighborhood meetings including the last
meeting that was attended by several of the individuals who have spoken tonight. The
applicant team has gone above and beyond the requirements for neighborhood
engagement.

Regarding the assertion that the project is not doing enough to recognize the history of
the site, he stated that this site was home to the first surgicenter in the United States
and that there simply wasn’t enough time in the presentation. Regarding height, all
arguments asserting incompatibility require that Banner and its 250 feet of height
entitlement be ignored from consideration. Regarding the assertion that the project will
not be affordable to ordinary workers, the only other option available under the CNSPD
are single family homes and those are unaffordable also and continue to increase in
value. Regarding the design change, the design is not changing but they are instead
offering two options. At the last meeting, there was an immense amount of criticism
about the elevations on the basis that they were not modern enough, so the applicant
team is trying to provide an option to the committee. Regarding the criticism that the



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 327
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

historic homes are under threat of development by the applicant, Fairfield Residential
does not own the historic homes, but they have been included in the PUD to provide
certainty that they will be preserved. Regarding the pedestrian safety, there is a
stipulation that will require speed humps between McDowell Road and Coronado Road.
For speed humps north of Coronado Road, the applicant team does not have control of
that portion of street, but the neighbors can ask the city to install speed humps.
Regarding traffic impact, the traffic study objectively identifies that the proposed project
will produce fewer vehicle trips than what would be permitted by a medical office
building. He concluded by stating that there is a strong staff recommendation to approve
and that there is no opposition to the 48 foot building that is adjacent to residential
neighbors.

Mr. Ed McCoy stated that Phoenix is in a housing crisis and that there needs to be
flexibility in older plans since so much has changed in the past 37 years. The height of
80 feet is appropriate due to its location on a major arterial and adjacent to Banner
University Medical Center which is constructed to a height of 200 feet and approved for
250 feet.

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

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez asked Dr. Reiner about the conservation plan’s goal to
ensure affordable housing opportunities to all residents and what the neighborhood has
done to implement that goal. Dr. Donna Reiner stated that is outside the ability of the
neighborhood to address but that what has happened is that owners have squeezed out
renters and demolished or renovated and increased the rent. Vice Chair Nicole
Rodriguez asked Dr. Reiner if there are plans to update the conservation plan because
some items may be out of date. Dr. Reiner agreed that the conservation plan should be
updated with regard to some items that may have changed such as parking, but she
asserted that height remains a common denominator and that the guidance in the plan
is still relevant. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that the history of the Coronado
neighborhood suggests that while it was never redlined, it was established for working
class white families. Dr. Reiner agreed.

Committee Member Brent Kleinman stated that there has been significant progress
but more that can be done by working with the neighborhood. He suggested the item be
tabled until the February meeting because there was some confusion on the purpose of
tonight’s meeting and to allow for another meeting between the developer and
stakeholders before it returns to the committee for a recommendation. He also stated
that he would like to see a list of the people in support, opposition, concerns, and a
response from the applicant to each of the concerns. Chair Wagner asked if Committee
Member Kleinman is making a motion. Committee Member Kleinman declined.

Committee Member Jeremy Thacker asked staff if the committee has the authority to
make aesthetic recommendations. Mr. Joshua Bednarek responded that in a
traditional rezoning case, the committee has the authority to require “general
conformance” to elevations. For a PUD, the committee is not only review design



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 328
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

guidelines but also elevations. In this case, the committee can give direction to the
commission and the city council. Committee Member Jeremy Thacker asked how
these standards would be enforced when the project moves toward construction and
what would happen if they were to make changes to the proposal. Mr. Joshua
Bednarek responded that there is a definition for “general conformance” that would
allow a maximum deviation of 10 percent from the plans submitted. If the changes
exceed 10 percent and “general conformance” is stipulated, the stipulation would need
to be amended through a public process. He then added that the applicant has agreed
to a stipulation that would require adherence to certain design elements for the Spanish
style or to return to the committee for ‘review and comment’ if the contemporary
aesthetic is chosen. Committee Member Jeremy Thacker noted that there is a limited
amount of land resources within the city and that density and height are often
necessary.

Committee Member Drew Bryck asked the applicant if they feel another month would
be productive in working toward a resolution. Mr. Ed McCoy stated that they have been
working on the project for two years and that of the 2,000 homes in the Coronado
neighborhood, only 5 have expressed concerns tonight and these individuals attended
many of the many neighborhood meetings. He stated that most of the concerns related
to height and architecture. Regarding architecture, Fairfield is agreeable with either of
the two aesthetic approaches. Regarding height, Fairfield has decreased the height on
Dayton Street from 5 to 4 stories, on Coronado Road from 3 to 1 stories, and the only
way to make the project work is to place 7 stories on McDowell Road which is a major
arterial street. He concluded by stating that he does not believe they will get to a point
where the height will be satisfactory to the opponents.

Committee Member Drew Bryck asked if the Spanish Revival style was shared early
enough to give the neighborhood time to review it. Mr. Ed McCoy responded that it was
part of the PUD and that they worked directly with Mr. Castelletti and Mr. Vigil on that
design for several months. He stated that the only distinctions from the preferences of
Mr. Castelletti and Mr. Vigil is that they wanted a maximum of 5 stories and no
balconies. The Spanish Revival style has been shared publicly for months and the
contemporary option is in response to more recent comments from the neighborhood.
Regarding affordability, he added that the rents are intended to provide missing middle
housing for tenants such as nurses, teachers, and police officers.

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez stated that 270,000 housing units are needed. She
stated that the parking requirements are arbitrary, but that housing demand is not and is
drastically needed. In reviewing the conservation plan, the 7 stories are outside of the
area that is being amended. She stated that 43 percent of households have 1 or fewer
vehicles available. If serious about reducing housing costs, the parking supply should
be reduced. Parking stalls in garages can range from $30,000 to $40,000 per space.
The applicant provided a thorough packet on neighborhood engagement, and she
indicated that the case should move forward tonight rather than being delayed another
month.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 329
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

Committee Member G.G. George expressed support for a delay. She asked if the
applicant has a record of the citizens who attended each of the meetings. Mr. Paul
Gilbert responded that do and have provided that to the City of Phoenix as required.
Committee Member G.G. George asked staff what it would take to move this meeting
to another month so they applicant can provide a detailed account of who attended what
meeting. Mr. Joshua Bednarek indicated that the committee can make a motion to
continue the request to the next meeting with the direction that the applicant continue
working with the community. He added that the applicant has provided staff with
documentation of who they have met and worked with throughout the process.

Committee Member Brent Kleinman stated that he no longer feels a delay would be
productive. He expressed interest in making a motion. Mr. Bednarek explained that
Item No. 3 (Z-2-22-4) is the approval of the PUD and Item No. 4 (Z-15-22-4) is the
amendment to the CNSPD. He then presented 3 versions of stipulation language that
would 1) approve per the staff recommendation, 2) approve per the staff
recommendation and require the Spanish Revival elevations, or 3) approve per the staff
recommendation and require the more contemporary elevations.

MOTION
Committee Member Brent Kleinman made a motion to approve Z-2-22-4 per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Paul Benjamin seconded to the motion.

DISCUSSION
Committee Member Nicole Rodriguez stated that there is more correspondence in
support than in opposition.

Committee Member Drew Bryck asked which aesthetic the committee is voting on for
this motion. Committee Member Brent Kleinman stated that he is leaving the
aesthetics out of his motion and is simply recommending to approval per the staff
recommendation.

Committee Member Drew Bryck expressed support for the Spanish Revival style.

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez stated that she appreciates that the project is mixed-use
and expressed that she would be leaning toward the Spanish Revival style and supports
the project except for the amount of parking provided.

VOTE
12-2-1; motion to approve Z-2-22-4 per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee Members Benjamin, Bryck, Jewett, Kleinman, Mahrle, Matthews, Picos,
Procaccini, Tedhams, Thacker, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Chair Wagner in support; with
Committee Members George and Searles opposed, and Schiller abstaining.

At the time of the vote, Committee Member Ann Cothron was unavailable which thereby
decreased the quorum to 15 members (9 being required for a quorum).




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 330
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

No comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 331
ATTACHMENT D


NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING OF THE
PHOENIX HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting
Final Minutes



Date: February 13, 2023
Time: 4:30 p.m.
Location: Virtual meeting via Webex

Commission Members Present Staff Present
Dan Klocke, Chair Kevin Weight
Dan Garcia, Vice Chair Jodey Elsner
Tricia Amato Bridget Collins
Richard DeUriarte Helana Ruter
Christina Noble Crystal Carrancho
Keely Varvel Hartsell Cletus Montoya
Emma Collins
Paul Li (Assistant Chief Counsel)

Commission Members Absent Staff Absent
Taz Khatri
Greta Rayle
Brenda Thomson



1. Call meeting to order Dan Klocke, HP
Commission Chair
Chair Klocke verified that a quorum was established and called the
meeting to order at 4:33 p.m.

2. Introduction of Commission Members and Staff HP Commission &
Staff
The Commission members and HP staff made their introductions.

3. Review of minutes from the January 9, 2023, monthly meeting HP Commission

Action Requested: Approval of Minutes

Chair Klocke asked the Commission for a motion on the January 9th
minutes.

Vice Chair Garcia made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted
for the January 9, 2023, meeting.

Commissioner Amato seconded the motion.

The Commission votes, as follows:


Page 332
Chair Klocke – Yes
Vice Chair Garcia – Yes
Commissioner Amato – Yes
Commissioner DeUriarte – Yes
Commissioner Noble – Yes
Commissioner Varvel Hartsell – Yes

Approved 6-0.

4. Public Hearing for Application No. Z-2-22-4, HP Zoning Boundary Kevin Weight, HP
Adjustment for Proposed PUD at the northwest corner of 11th Staff, Paul Gilbert,
Street and McDowell Road. Beus Gilbert
McGroder PLLC
Action Requested: Recommendation on Historic Preservation (HP)
Overlay Zoning boundary modification

Chair Klocke invited Kevin Weight to present this item.

Mr. Weight presented the request for three changes at this site, as
follows:
x Z-2-22-4:
o Base zoning change From R1-6, C-2, R-3A and P-1; To PUD
o Adjustment to HP zoning overlay boundary
x Z-15-22-4
o Modification to Coronado Neighborhood Conservation Plan
(a.k.a. Coronado Neighborhood Special District Plan)

Mr. Weight told the Commission members that they were being asked
for a formal recommendation on the second item—the adjustment to the
HP overlay—but could comment on other items if desired. He said that
staff finds the modified boundary will still include the full width of each of
the seven lots within the HP overlay and the primary historic building on
each lot, thereby generally meeting the guidelines in Section 807.E of
the Zoning Ordinance. Also, all seven properties will remain contributors
to the Coronado Historic District. However, the reduction in lot size and
increased proximity to much larger scale new construction will result in
an adverse effect on the historic properties. To mitigate this adverse
effect, HP staff recommends that perpetual easements be granted to the
City on all seven historic properties. He said that staff was
recommending that the approval of the boundary adjustment be subject
to the following stipulation noted in the associated staff report:
x Perpetual conservation easements, in accordance with the
requirements of the City’s Historic Preservation Office, shall be
recorded on the following properties (which constitute a portion of
this site):
o 1622 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-014A);
o 1626 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-015);
o 1630 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-016);
o 1634 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-017);
o 1638 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-018);
o 1642 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-019); and



Page 333
o 1646 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-020); with modified
boundaries consistent with the HP zoning overlay boundary
adjustment

Next, Chair Klocke invited Paul Gilbert to give a brief update on the
request for the boundary adjustment.

Mr. Gilbert reviewed the project evolution, highlights, and proposed
modifications to HP overlay zoning, as follows:
x (Pre-Fairfield) Developer proposed 144-room hotel and 7-story,
307-unit apartment community for subject site, which would
require demolition of all 7 historic houses;
x (Public Outreach) Dozens of meetings/discussions with both
neighbors and stakeholders, Phoenix HP Office, and cross-
section of supporters;
o Developer initiated Working Group to include neighbors
and stakeholders with wide range of perspectives &
interests to seek compromises to resolve outstanding
issues;
o Significant design changes – based on feedback from
neighbors, stakeholders, and staff – regarding height,
density, orientation, architectural character, and historic
preservation
x Modification justification
o Non-historic additions may be demolished if constructed
after the historic building’s period of significance or lack
historic significance;
o Demolition approval may be granted for properties in
historic districts that are classified as non-contributors
either due to age or a loss of historic integrity
o Detached garages and other accessory structures that
were not built to the same standards as the primary
historic building (i.e. – wood frame construction rather
than masonry built directly on dirt or concrete slab with no
footings;
x Revitalization – 4 key upgrades
o Front yard landscape updates
o Window repairs/replacements to current HP and energy
efficiency standards
o Roof repairs and replacements per HP standards
o Front porch enhancements
x Highlights & Benefits
o Preserve all 7 historic houses
o Guaranteed preservation via conservation easement
o Historic houses will remain within Coronado Historic
District
o Historic houses will be revitalized per HP standards
o Redevelop & revitalize vacant, obsolete medical facility &
surface parking lot
o Expand housing options & opportunities in Coronado
neighborhood


Page 334
o Create appropriate transition from Banner University
Medical Center to Coronado Road
o Redesigned to respond to neighborhood concerns
ƒ Architecture designed to be compatible with
character of Coronado neighborhood
ƒ Providing 3 rows of trees as a buffer between
redevelopment site and the 7 historic houses
o Supported and approved by Staff and Encanto VPC

Chair Klocke asked the Commission for questions or comments for Mr.
Weight or Mr. Gilbert.

Commissioner Varvel Hartsell asked for clarification on the proposed
use for the seven historic houses.

Mr. Gilbert said that all seven of the historic houses would remain
residential.

Commissioner Amato asked for clarification on the (potential) loss of the
alley behind the seven historic houses.

Mr. Gilbert confirmed that the alley had been officially abandoned years
ago.

Chair Klocke verified that there were no further questions or comments
from the Commission.

Chair Klocke invited Reid Butler to share his comments on this item.

Mr. Butler said that he did not have any comments.

Chair Klocke asked the property owner, Vikki Reed, for her comments.

Ms. Reed said that she did not have any additional comments.

Chair Klocke asked Ms. Ruter whether any public comments had been
submitted for this item.

Ms. Ruter said a few requests for public comment were submitted to the
HP Office.

Laura Hahn said she lives in the Coronado neighborhood. She is
enthusiastic about the area being reinvigorated with the new
development.

Eddie Green said he is excited about the project to redevelop the site.
He urged the HP Commission for their approval of the project.

Donna Reiner said she is a longtime resident of Coronado. She is not
happy with the redevelopment plan, as the developer is well aware.
However, she is happy about placing perpetual easements on the seven
historic houses.


Page 335
John Stenson said that he strongly supports the project. He commends
the developers for their outreach to the community regarding the
proposed plans for redevelopment of the site.

Ruben Valencia said he lives near the site. He was concerned about
how the traffic flow patterns would be changed due to the new
construction and the relocation of the entrance to Banner Health.

Mr. Gilbert said that a traffic study, which was completed and submitted
to the city, was approved by the city. He stated that this project would
produce less traffic than what could be built on the property under the
existing zoning. In addition, the city requested the developer pay for a
traffic-control device that would regulate the traffic flow crossing over
McDowell Road to Banner Health. This should address the concerns
about traffic flow.

Chair Klocke asked the Commission for questions or comments.

Vice Chair Garcia said that he thinks that this proposed project is a win
for historic preservation. He said that it is important to balance historic
preservation with new development. He would much rather see the
preservation of these seven historic houses than losing all of them to
demolition. He also appreciates the good-faith offer to place
conservation easements on all of the historic properties. He would be
willing to offer a motion on this item.

Commissioner DeUriarte agrees with Vice Chair Garcia’s comments,
and he would be willing to second a motion for this item with stipulations.

Chair Klocke said that there would need to be a formal call for a motion.
He then invited Commissioner Amato to share her comments.

Commissioner Amato agreed. These seven houses were now being
saved when previously they were going to be demolished for
redevelopment of the site. Even with the release of the rear portion of
each lot and the loss of a few auxiliary structures, this is still a win for the
neighborhood and for historic preservation.

Chair Klocke echoed the previous comments. He said that the arterial
streets are a disaster, and he thinks this issue will come up many times
over the next 30 to 40 years regarding redevelopment within the city. He
said that the edges of historic districts will continue to be nibbled at for
redevelopment. He thinks this project would be a good example on how
to address this issue with future developments. He expressed his
appreciation for all the work that went into this project, and he said that
he is very supportive of this project.

Chair Klocke asked the Commission for a motion on this item.

Commissioner Amato made a motion to approve the recommendation
on HP overlay zoning boundary modification to include the stipulation for


Page 336
perpetual easements to be recorded on each of the seven properties
noted in Case # Z-2-22-4 for the Proposed PUD at the northwest corner
of 11th Street and McDowell Road.

Commissioner DeUriarte seconded the motion.

The Commission votes, as follows:
Chair Klocke – Yes
Vice Chair Garcia – Yes
Commissioner Amato – Yes
Commissioner DeUriarte – Yes
Commissioner Noble – Yes
Commissioner Varvel Hartsell – Yes

Approved 6-0.

5. 2022-2023 Warehouse and Threatened Building Grant Approval: Kevin Weight, HP
City Center Motel (600 W Van Buren St). Staff; Nimesh
Dinubhai, Fabius
Action Requested: Recommend approval of grant funding Enterprises

Chair Klocke invited Kevin Weight to present this item.

Mr. Weight gave some background on the subject property, as follows:
x 2011 – City Center Motel was featured in Midcentury Marvels:
Commercial Architecture of Phoenix 1945-1975, published by the
the City Center Motel was a rare surviving local example of
Googie-style roadside design. At that time, HP staff also
determined the motel was eligible for listing on the Phoenix
Historic Property Register and the National Register of Historic
Places;
x DEC 11, 2021 – Property owner (Fabius Enterprise, LLC) filed
application to demolish both the main building fronting Van Buren
Street and a secondary building located further to the north and
replace them both with a new multi-story hotel on the same site
o The demolition application was subject to a 30-day hold
due to:
ƒ Property was over 50 years old
ƒ Commercial use
ƒ Located in Downtown Code Area
ƒ Flagged as historically eligible
x DEC 20, 2021 – HP Commission initiated HP zoning for the
motel due to concern about losing the historic property.
Subsequently, HP staff filed rezoning application Z-5-22-7, and
the property owner withdrew the application for demolition
x FEB 14, 2022 – Following several weeks of discussions between
staff and property owner, the owner presented a revised design
to build new hotel while preserving most of the existing historic
main building. HP Commission accepted the revised design and




Page 337
ATTACHMENT E


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 2, 2023
REVISED

ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-2-22-4 (11th Street and McDowell PUD)
(Companion Case Z-15-22-4)
Location: Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road
From: R1-6 HP CNSPD, C-2 CNSPD, R-3A CNSPD, and P-1 CNSPD
To: PUD CNSPD and PUD CNSPD HP
Acreage: 5.16
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential, retail use, and
retention of the historic single-family homes.
Applicant: Ed McCoy, Fairfield Residential
Owner: Vikki Reed, et al.
Representative: Kurt Waldier, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 5/2/2022 Information only.
Encanto 1/9/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-2-1.

Historic Preservation Commission Recommendation (2/13/2023): Approval, per the staff
recommendation, with the stipulation for perpetual conservations easements. Vote: 6-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation with a modification.

Motion Discussion:

Vice Chairman Gaynor indicated that he would like to make a motion. He could not find where
either of the two elevations are. He asked Mr. Gilbert what the name of the design is.

Mr. Gilbert responded, Spanish Revival.

Commissioner Boyd MOTIONED to approve Z-2-22-4, per the Encanto VPC recommendation,
with the addition that Stipulation 3 be modified to strike out the conceptual rendering date
stamped December 30, 2022, which would leave the December 23rd elevations, which are the
Spanish Revival.

Vice Chairman Gaynor SECONDED.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Howard called for a vote and the MOTION passed
8-0 (Simon absent).

Motion details: Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-2-22-4, per the Encanto
Village Planning Committee recommendation with the addition that Stipulation 3 be modified to

Page 338
strike out the conceptual rendering date stamped December 30, 2022, which would leave the
December 23rd elevations, which are the Spanish Revival.

Maker: Boyd
Second: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Simon
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposed PUD provides a regulatory framework that will allow for the redevelopment
of an underutilized site across the street from a major employer to develop with a mix of
uses and housing types.

2. The proposal calls for the preservation and integration of seven historically designated
single-family homes into the project.

3. The PUD’s development standards will provide for an enhanced and shaded streetscape
on all four streets and a concentration of the tallest building heights near McDowell Road.

Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the 11th Street and McDowell 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 December 23, 2022, as modified by the following stipulations:

a. Page 10, Permitted Uses, Mixed-Use Residential / Commercial Land Use
Category: Modify the requirement for a minimum square footage of commercial to
read as follows:

Shall provide a minimum of 5,000 square feet non-residential uses. Non-
residential uses shall not include, lobby, exercise, receptions areas, or other
similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All non-residential uses shall
have their primary access from perimeter rights-of-way.

b. Page 12, Landscape Standards, Streetscape – Adjacent to Public Right-of -Way:
Add a section to the table that contains the following standards:

All streetscapes shall provide a detached sidewalk and a landscape strip.
Standards for the detached sidewalks and landscape strips are as follows:

x McDowell Road
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and sidewalk: 11
feet
x 11th Street (South of the paseo)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and sidewalk: 6
feet
x Dayton Street (South, within 225 feet of McDowell Road)

Page 339
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and sidewalk: 6
feet
x Dayton Street (North, 225 feet north of McDowell Road)
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and sidewalk: 6
feet
x Coronado Road
o Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet, average 6 feet
o Minimum width of landscape strip between curb and sidewalk: 6
feet

c. Page 16, Landscape Standards, Minimum Open Space: Add the following
language to this section:

The paseo shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and provide for a continuous
pedestrian connection between 11th Street and Dayton Street. Entry points for
the paseo shall be provided at both 11th Street and Dayton Street per the
Circulation Plan (Exhibit 12).

d. Page 25, Sustainability, City Enforced Standards: Modify the standard related to
electric vehicle charging stations to read as follows:

A minimum of 20 Level 1 electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided
within the parking garage.

2. Perpetual conservation easements, in accordance with the requirements of the City’s
Historic Preservation Office, shall be recorded on the following properties (which
constitute a portion of this site): 1622 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-014A); 1626 North
11th Street APN 117-25-015); 1630 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-016; 1634 North
11th Street (APN 117-25-017); 1638 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-018); 1642 North
11th Street (APN 117-25-019); and 1646 North 11th Street (APN 117-25-020), with
modified boundaries consistent with the HP zoning overlay boundary adjustment.

3. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer will present updated building
elevations for the seven-story portion of the development to the Encanto Village
Planning Committee for informational purposes only and to provide review and
comment. The intent of this meeting is to inform the committee as to how the developer
has enhanced the visual presence of the building via the following architectural features:

• Use of color
• Material changes
• Artistic elements and murals on the ground floor

The elevations shall be consistent with the conceptual elevations (Exhibit 10) in the PUD
Narrative dated stamped December 23, 2022, or consistent with the conceptual
renderings date stamped December 30, 2022, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 40-foot of right-of-way and minimum 4-foot-
wide sidewalk easement along the north side of McDowell Road, as approved by the
Planning and Development and Street Transportation departments.



Page 340
5. All minimum streetscape requirements within the PUD Narrative shall be completely
located within right-of-way or appropriate sidewalk easement, as modified, and
approved by the Planning and Development and Street Transportation departments.

6. The developer shall provide $115,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device along
McDowell Road prior to preliminary site plan approval and as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

7. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. The
developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all mitigation identified
through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department.

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

9. The developer shall work with the Street Transportation Department, Traffic Services
Division, for the application submission for speed hump/s along Dayton Street between
McDowell Road and Coronado Road, prior to preliminary site plan approval.
Improvements are subject to public petitioning approval per the Speed Hump Program
requirements from all property owners on the west and east side of Dayton Street from
McDowell Road to Coronado Road. The developer shall be responsible for providing all
funding of such improvements prior to requesting certificate of occupancy.

10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International 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.

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) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 341
ATTACHMENT F



Subject: FW: Feb. 13th Meeting: Application No. Z-2-22-4, HP Zoning Boundary Adjustment for Proposed
PUD at the northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road



From: Laura Hahn
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:52 AM
To: PDD Historic Preservation
Subject: Feb. 13th Meeting: Application No. Z‐2‐22‐4, HP Zoning Boundary Adjustment for Proposed PUD at the
northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road

Good morning,

As a resident of the Coronado neighborhood, I would like to submit commentary in favor of the development at 11th St
and McDowell. As someone who frequently walks and bikes around the neighborhood and the city, I would love to see
that strip of McDowell more "activated"‐‐it's just a string of empty buildings and lots right now. I'd love for that area to
feel like a part of the vibrant neighborhood rather than a dead zone.

Best,
Laura Hahn
1533 E Granada Rd.





Page 342
From: Emily Giannone
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Support for - Items #5 (Z-2-22-4) and #6 (Z-14-22-4)
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:33:50 PM




Dear Planning Commission,

I hope it’s not too late to share my message of support for the 11th Street and McDowell development project, to be
discussed in tomorrow’s meeting.

My husband and I have been residents of the Coronado Historic District for the past 12 years, homeowners in the
neighborhood for 11 years. I want to make sure you know my husband and I voice our strong support for Fairfield’s
11th St. & McDowell Rd. Mixed-Use Community Project.

We believe the project will provide numerous benefits for the neighborhood and surrounding community and is a far
better option than the current vacant Surgicenter and parking lot.

I understand just a few loud voices have opposed the project, but there are many, many more Coronado homeowners
who support this project. Fairfield has done an admirable job of working with the community over quite some time
to deliver a project that aligns with our wants and needs. I hope this show of support will be taken into consideration
during your meeting tomorrow. Thank you.

Regards,
Emily Giannone

Sent from my iPhone




Page 343
ATTACHMENT G

January 6, 2023

Encanto Village Planning committee
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
attn: Planner Nick Klimeck &
Sarah Stockman

RE: 11th and Mcdowell PUD - Z-2-22-4 (Companion Case Z-15-22-4):

Dear Committee,

My name is Artie A. Vigil III, I am a 17 year resident of the Coronado Historic District and reside at 2026 N
10th street, which is approximately two blocks from this site. I am unable to attend the January 9th
committee hearing.

I have been apart of a group of neighbors who have been working with the developer on trying to get
the project to be more compatible in both scale, diversity and traditional architecture with the
Coronado Neighborhood. The developer is seeking a substantial entitlement over what is allowed in
both height and density within the Coronado Conservation plan. In exchange for the increased density
I have been advocating for the saving of all historic homes, a transition in height towards the
neighborhood to the north and architecture that divides the buildings up into more traditional blocks,
rather than one large continuous building. Lastly and what I feel is more important for compatibility is a
quality architecture that will be timeless and compatible with the Historic Coronado Neighborhood.

I am in support of redevelopment of the Surical Center. However, at this scale, its important that the
project will not deteriorate quickly and become the largest eyesore of the Coronado Historic District.

These goals and principles are outlined as goals within the city of Phoenix. For example within the
General plan, one of the primary goals is to ensure certainty for our neighborhoods and protection of
our historic districts.

Design (pg 106): Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and
its various housing lifestyles through new development that is compatible in scale,
design and appearance.

Design (pg 107) Provide high quality urban design and amenities that reflect the
best of urban living at an appropriate village scale.

Historic Districts (pg110) Ensure new development and infill that is responsive to
the historic surroundings and is compatible in scale, massing, proportion and
materials.

Certainly the current plan has made improvements from the intial proposal. However, I'm very
concerned about the "Cruise Ship" extended balconies on the 7 story building.

Current Proposal: Cruise Ship




Page 344
The primary concern with these balconies extended over the street is how they evolve over time and
become eyesores for the adjacent neighbors and anyone passing bye. You can see this devolution of
extruded balconies a global blight.




Alternatively, places of high quality and character have a more organized street façade. Balconies
are minimal to not allow the visualization of furniture at 7 levels above ground. They don’t become
storage areas for residents.

San Antonio:
Notice all balconies are recessed within a formal façade. This project is within the Pearl Brewery Historic
neighborhood.




Santa Barbara, California:
Balconies are either fully recessed into the building. Or Juliet shallow balconies which do not allow for
furniture, storage or clothing. The architectural façade is an organized composition and the balconies
are minimal and used as architectural accents within the overall design. Only a few residential units
have balconies.




Page 345
Phoenix - 1st street and McDowell.
Not every unit has a patio. If they do, they are either fully recessed or a Juliet style.




Page 346
4357 Goldwater Blvd, Scottsdale AZ

All balconies are recessed into the façade and organized within the façade in groupings. Not every
residential unit has a patio or juliet balcony. No balconies extend beyond the façade of the building.




Page 347
New York City

The most expensive real estate in New York City overlooking Central Park does not have balonies
extending beyond the façade.




Therefore, I'd request that the committee stipulate that:

1) All balconies are either fully recessed into façade of the building.

2) Or Juliet balconies do not extend beyond the façade more than 2'-0".

3) CCR's that ensure that balconies and patios do not become eye sores for use as storage.


Thank you,



Arthur A. Vigil III, Coronado Resident




Page 348
From: Rick Krussman
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Destruction of PHOENIX CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT
Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 1:19:59 PM



File number 100537-000001
Z-2-22
Z-15-22

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rick Krussman
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: Destruction of PHOENIX CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT
To:




---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rick Krussman
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:13 PM
Subject: Destruction of PHOENIX CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT
To: joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov , Kurt Waldier
, ,



I am writing as I continue to oppose this outrageous attack
on this Historic District. I am a property owner very near to
this proposed monstrosity.
I and my many neighbors purchased property in this
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT believing that it was a
Protected District. Now we are faced with this project that
completely is opposite of what a Historic District is. The city
of Phoenix MUST honor its code and protect Coronado from
this invasion of GREED.
The density of the project is absurd and will upset the entire
nature of the community as well as all the nearby neighbors.
There are so many things wrong with this project--parking
that is insufficient to house 271 households, increased traffic
and crime, gross annoyance to the residents immediately
adjacent, and the aesthetics of high rise buildings in a
Historic District. I am sick of the City allowing these high
density projects built right onto the roadway. The Planners,



Page 349
in my opinion, have no clue as to what is valued by our
citizens and how these projects destroy the peacefulness in
our Historic Districts.

The processes by which citizens must comply to appeal the
moves by these greedy developers and poor Planners makes
me angry as Hell. We should not have to attend virtual
meetings, write opposition letters, etc when in fact this is a
PROTECTED HISTORIC DISTRICT. It is a no brainer situation
that it should be DENIED.

Please do not allow this project and RUIN Coronado. Do the
right thing for once!

Rick Krussman




Page 350



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Special Planning District Amendment
Z-15-22-4 - Northwest Corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road (Ordinance G-
7096)

Request for a public hearing for a proposed amendment to the Neighborhood
Conservation Plan for the Coronado Neighborhood for approximately 4.05 acres at the
northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road. This is a companion case to Z-2-
22-4.

Summary
Amendment to the Neighborhood Conservation Plan for the Coronado Neighborhood
(the “Coronado Neighborhood Conservation Plan”) for approximately 4.05 acres at the
northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road to exempt the subject site from
the multifamily development standards in the plan.

Owner: Vikki Reed, et al.
Applicant: Ed McCoy, Fairfield Residential
Representative: Kurt Waldier, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A of
the Staff Report (Attachment B).
VPC Information Only: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on
May 2, 2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on Jan. 9, 2023,
and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-2-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: Various




Page 351

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




Page 352
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 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
PLAN FOR THE CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIBED HEREIN (Z-
15-22-4) FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.05 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 11TH STREET AND MCDOWELL ROAD.

____________


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

SECTION 1. The Neighborhood Conservation Plan for the Coronado Neighborhood,

which was adopted by Ordinance G-2892, is hereby amended by adopting Z-15-22-4 an

amendment to the Neighborhood Conservation Plan for the Coronado Neighborhood.

SECTON 2. That Chapter 5, Plan Regulations (Page 30) be amended to read as

follows:

***

11. Nonconforming Additions

- Residential additions which conform to the existing building side and rear yard
setback line will be allowed through blanket use permit approval. This will allow
side and rear yards to be reduced for nonconforming structures (which are
common in this neighborhood with many substandard size lots).

o The small nonconforming homes commonly found in the rear of single-family lots
shall not be expanded.

SITE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

12. NORTHWEST CORNER OF 11TH STREET AND MCDOWELL ROAD

o THE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 11TH STREET AND
MCDOWELL ROAD, BOUND BY CORONADO ROAD TO THE NORTH,
MCDOWELL ROAD TO THE SOUTH, DAYTON STREET TO THE WEST, AND
11TH STREET TO THE EAST, EXCLUDING THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE



Page 353
CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE HEIGHT,
SETBACK, AND PARKING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (PLAN
REGULATIONS 4, 6, AND 7) CONTAINED IN THIS PLAN, PURSUANT TO THE
APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. Z-2-22-4.

***


PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.



________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




Page 354
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report: Z-15-22-4
January 6, 2023


Application No. Z-15-22-4: Amendment to the Neighborhood Conservation Plan for the
Coronado Neighborhood (the “Coronado Neighborhood Conservation Plan”) for
approximately 4.05 acres at the northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road to
exempt the subject site from the multifamily development standards in the plan.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-15-22-4 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND
In 1986, the Phoenix City Council approved the Coronado Neighborhood Conservation
Plan, which is a regulatory plan for the area bounded by 7th Street to the west,
McDowell Road to the south, 16th Street to the east, and Virginia Avenue to the north.
The plan includes regulations for new multifamily development, including a height limit
of 48 feet, a setback from single-family properties of 30 feet, and a minimum of two
parking spaces per dwelling unit.

The applicant proposes a new mixed-use development with multifamily residential and
retail uses for the site at the northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road,
through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that is being processed concurrently with
this application (Rezoning Case No. Z-2-22-4). Because the proposed development
would not comply with the multifamily regulations of the Coronado Neighborhood
Conservation Plan, this request is to amend the plan by adding a site-specific
exemption, stating that the subject site is exempt from the height, setback, and parking
regulations of the plan. Therefore, the standards in the PUD will govern the new
development.

CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment to the Coronado Neighborhood Conservation Plan would allow
multifamily residential development, pursuant to a proposed PUD, to be exempt from the
height, setback, and parking rules of the plan. Staff recommends approval of the
amendment as proposed in Exhibit A.

Writer
Joshua Bednarek
January 6, 2023

Exhibit A: Proposed Language
Exhibit B: Coronado Neighborhood Conservation Plan Map
Exhibit C: Aerial Map




Page 355
Exhibit A
Z-15-22-4: Amendment to the
Neighborhood Conservation Plan for the Coronado Neighborhood

Proposed Language:

Amend Chapter 5, Plan Regulations (Page 30) to read as follows:

***

11. Nonconforming Additions

- Residential additions which conform to the existing building side and rear
yard setback line will be allowed through blanket use permit approval. This
will allow side and rear yards to be reduced for nonconforming structures
(which are common in this neighborhood with many substandard size lots).

o The small nonconforming homes commonly found in the rear of single-family
lots shall not be expanded.

SITE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

12. NORTHWEST CORNER OF 11TH STREET AND MCDOWELL ROAD

o THE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 11TH STREET AND
MCDOWELL ROAD, BOUND BY CORONADO ROAD TO THE NORTH,
MCDOWELL ROAD TO THE SOUTH, DAYTON STREET TO THE WEST,
AND 11TH STREET TO THE EAST, EXCLUDING THE PROPERTIES
WITHIN THE CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT, SHALL BE EXEMPT
FROM THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, AND PARKING DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (PLAN REGULATIONS 4, 6, AND 7) CONTAINED IN THIS
PLAN, PURSUANT TO THE APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. Z-2-22-4.

***




Page 356
Exhibit B
Coronado Neighborhood Conservation Plan Map




Page 357
Exhibit C
Aerial Map




Page 358
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-15-22-4
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting May 2, 2022
Request To Amend the Neighborhood Conservation Plan for the
Coronado Neighborhood
Proposed Use Multifamily residential, retail use, and retention of the
historic single-family homes
Location Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 6 (Z-2-22-4) and Item No. 7 (Z-15-22-4) are companion cases and were heard
together. The items were heard out of order, after Item No. 3.

Committee member Ann Cothron joined during this item, bringing quorum to 12.

Six members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Gilbert, representing the applicant with Beus Gilbert McGroder, introduced himself
and the other associated parties in attendance. Mr. Gilbert then presented on the
context of the subject site, including its location and neighborhood context. Mr. Gilbert
displayed photos of the site including a vacant “surgicenter” and 7 historic single-family
homes. Mr. Gilbert then summarized the project’s prior community engagement; he next
introduced the site plan or a 301-unit multifamily project with ground-floor retail. Mr.
Gilbert then discussed: the Coronado Historic District and the preservation of existing
homes via a lot line adjustment, the Coronado Neighborhood Conservation plan with
regards to the project’s site-specific exemptions for multifamily development, and the
project’s size, height, and massing. Mr. Gilbert then introduced Craig Stoffel of Todd &
Associates to discuss architectural character and context, before referencing
suggestions taken from a local Coronado resident who is an architect. Mr. Gilbert
concluded the presentation by discussing traffic, parking, and housing affordability.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Opal Wagner asked staff about the precedent of amending a neighborhood
conservation plan. Ms. Stockham responded that she believes a conservation plan



200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 359
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
May 2, 2022

might have been amended in the past but would be happy to look further into the topic.
Ms. Wagner also asked about the applicability Walkable Urban Code, as she found the
property to be exactly a mile from a light-rail station. Mr. Gilbert invited Kurt Waldier to
respond, who stated that some people may still choose to walk, or more likely bike, to
the light rail based on community response. Ms. Wagner then posed the idea of
underground parking, to which Ed McCoy with Fairfield Residential responded that
underground parking is not off the table and is actively being studied. Ms. Wagner lastly
commented that she prefers restoration rather than replacement with regards to
improvements to features of the site’s existing homes.

Matthew Jewett inquired about parking, both why the count seemed to be so high, and
whether the parking would be assigned, to which Mr. Gilbert responded that the project
is rather asking to reduce parking below that of the neighborhood conservation
standard, and that, yes, each unit would have assigned parking. Mr. Jewett next asked
who owned the property, to which Mr. Gilbert replied that the Reed Family owned the
property.

Drew Bryck commented on the use of WU [Walkable Urban] Code with regards to this
case, and that the committee should keep this in mind moving forward. Mr. Gilbert
replied that he believes the WU Code makes the project much better.

Ann Cothron asked if the housing units proposed are considered affordable. Mr. Gilbert
answered that the housing is not affordable housing in the traditional sense, but rather
that the project aims to provide employees at Banner Medical Center. He invited Lee
Busse, with the applicant’s team, to concur, who shared that the project offers multiple
housing types, of which the studio and 1-bedroom units will be priced at about 33% of
the income of hospital employees, for example. Ms. Cothron then asked about the
project’s LEED certification and shade coverage, to which Mr. Busse responded that
they have yet to address LEED certification, though they are keen on implementing
numerous sustainability features. Mr. Gilbert directed the question to Mr. Stoffel, who
added that the landscape concept is expected to provide 75% site shading. Ms. Cothron
then asked if the renderings of the McDowell frontage provided a canopy, to which Mr.
Stoffel clarified it was in fact a 12-foot arcade being shown in the rendering.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Phil Dague introduced himself as a member of the Coronado neighborhood. Mr. Dague
stated that he was not opposed to the project in general but had concerns with the
project’s limited parking as proposed; he believes it will make parking on Dayton Street
more crowded.

Robert Warnicke introduced himself and stated that he thinks the project is much too
high and much too dense, nor is it appropriate to apply the Walkable Urban Code. Mr.
Warnicke acknowledged the benefit of preserving homes but feels that the scale and
height is not appropriate. Mr. Warnicke added that underground parking may alleviate
this, and that he looks forward to working with the applicant.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 360
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
May 2, 2022



Artie Vigil shared that he has met with the developer and encouraged them to propose
a project that is more compatible with the Coronado Conservation Plan. Mr. Vigil does
not believe that the proposal is in scale with the Coronado neighborhood. Mr. Vigil cited
Roosevelt Square as a comparable project, and that the proposal is nearly twice as
dense and taller in height than Roosevelt Square.

Jennifer O’Conner introduced herself as a neighbor one block to the north of the
proposed project. She stated that the neighborhood is walkable within its residential
areas, but not necessarily on major arterials. She does not agree with the transition in
height from single-family homes and is concerned about the increase in traffic on
Dayton.

Dr. Donna Reiner introduced herself as a 20-year neighborhood resident. Dr. Reiner
reiterated that she is not against density necessarily, but bad projects. Dr. Reiner stated
that the density, mass, and height is too high and referenced a project in the Willo
neighborhood that she believed to be superior in comparison. She concluded that the
project should adhere to the Coronado Preservation Plan.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Steve Procaccini asked how much retail square footage is proposed. Mr. Stoffel
answered 5,000 square feet. Mr. Procaccini then asked about a left-only egress to
Dayton Street, as well as about electric vehicle charging. Mr. Gilbert responded that
they have yet to consider a left-turn only exit from Dayton and that 5% of the project’s
parking spaces will be dedicated to electric vehicle charging.

Vice Chair Rodriguez mentioned that both her and committee member GG George
had previously met with the applicant to provide suggestions.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 361
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-15-22-4

Date of VPC Meeting January 9, 2023
Request To Amend the CNSPD
Proposed Use Multifamily residential, retail use, and retention of the
historic single-family homes.
Location Northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road
VPC Recommendation Approve, per staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-2-1

NOTE:

Rezoning Case No. Z-15-22-4 is a companion to Z-2-22-4. The items were heard together.
The below is a summary of the presentations and discussions regarding on Rezoning
Case No. Z-15-22-4 and its companion case. The summary following “Floor/Public
Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, And Vote” solely pertains to Rezoning Case Z-15-
22-4.

VPC DISCUSSION:

9 virtual speaker cards were received from members of the public with 2 donating their
time to other speakers. One speaker was registered in support and the other 8 in
opposition.

STAFF BACKGROUND PRESENTATION
Mr. Joshua Bednarek, staff, introduced the rezoning case and its companion case.
The items will be presented together but that separate motions are required for each
item. Rezoning Case No. Z-2-22-4 is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal for
271 dwelling units and the preservation and integration of 7 historically designated
homes. Rezoning Case No. Z-15-22-4 is a proposal to amend the Coronado
Neighborhood Special Planning District (CNSPD) which would provide a site specific
exception for the subject site. There has been a significant amount of public input on
this proposal including several community meetings organized by the District 4 Council
Office. Staff is recommending approval subject to several stipulations and, notably staff
is asking for direction from the committee in Stipulation No. 3 which would provide
direction between two architectural styles. He then stated that the Historic Preservation



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 362
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

Commission will consider the proposal on February 13, 2023, with regard to the
proposed amendment to the HP boundary.

Committee Member Rick Mahrle noted that this site was previously reviewed by the
committee and asked if that was a separate proposal or an amendment to that proposal.
Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez responded that this applicant presented in the summer of
2022. Committee Member Paul Benjamin added that this is a PUD which requires two
hearings before the VPC with the first being for “Information Only.”

Committee Member Drew Bryck noted that there was correspondence from the
neighborhood stating that there was an error in the sign. Mr. Bednarek responded that
staff has verified that the posting requirements have been met.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Gilbert, of Beus Gilbert McGroder, and representing the applicant, provided
an overview of the project, the public engagement process, and stated that the applicant
team is in full agreement with the staff recommendation and stipulations. The site is a
vacant, deteriorating, and obsolete medical office at an ideal location for urban
redevelopment. The site is directly across McDowell Road from Banner University
Medical Center and the proposal has received a strong letter of support from the Miracle
Mile Corridor.

The site contains 7 historic homes and, if the rezoning proposal is approved, the homes
will be preserved under a 100 year preservation easement, maintain the protection of
the historic zoning overlay, and be upgraded with front yard landscaping, windows
repaired and/or replaced in a manner consistent with historic standards, front porches
stabilized and enhanced as needed, and roofs upgraded in a manner consistent with
historic standards as needed. The proposal would move the historic designation
boundary by approximately 38 feet to reduce the depth of the rear yards.

The proposed amendment to the CNSPD keeps the site within the plan area but
exempts the site from the following standards: to allow commercial access to local
roads; to allow an increase in building heights and a reduction in setbacks; and to allow
a decrease in the parking requirements. He then stated that the site specific exemptions
are appropriate because the project accomplishes many of the broader goals articulated
by the plan.

Mr. Ed McCoy, of Fairfield Residential, provided a brief history of how the project
evolved over time. Once Fairfield became involved in 2021, the development team
began working with the neighborhood and stakeholders and created a working group to
refine the project. In response to neighborhood input, there is now a single story
amenity building on Coronado Road, the northern building is now four stories with a
podium deck oriented to the west, the site has more parking, and the architecture has
been revised.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 363
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

Mr. Paul Gilbert provided an overview of the two architectural options which arose from
conflicting opinions from the neighborhood. The committee has the option to select
which of the design approaches it feels is most appropriate. He then summarized the
proposal and rationale for approval.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Mahrle asked if retail parking will be entirely located within the
parking structure. Mr. Paul Gilbert confirmed. Committee Member Mahrle stated that
it is critically important that the parking lot on Coronado Road include spaces oriented
toward the apartments, so headlights do not shine into homes across Coronado Road.

Committee Member Jewett thanked the applicant team for including recycling and for
the paseo. He asked if there is on-street parking on one or both sides of Dayton Street
and requested more information regarding the traffic control device stipulated. He also
asked who owns the historic homes. Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that the residential homes
are owned by a separate owner and that these homes will not be owned by Fairfield
Residential. There will only be parking on one side of Dayton Street. The traffic control
device is intended to be a HAWK style crossing across McDowell Road; the applicant is
funding the device, but it will be designed by the Street Transportation Department.

Chair Opal Wagner commended the applicant for not trying to amend the CNSPD
because there are many conservation plans throughout the city and such a removal
could set a precedent.

Committee Member Randy Schiller asked how much guest parking will be provided in
the parking structure and whether solar will be added to the project. Mr. Paul Gilbert
stated that there are currently no plans for solar and that the parking calculations do not
include the parallel spaces on Dayton Street. Mr. Ed McCoy stated that the parking
structure will include unrestricted residential guest parking in the structure, resident
parking will be restricted to the top of the garage, and retail will be toward the bottom of
the garage.

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez asked if there are any design features to prevent
headlights in the Coronado Road parking lot from shining into apartment units. Mr.
Orion Pientak, from the applicant team, responded that there are some windows
planned along that building face but that headlights will be blocked by patios with low
walls and landscaping. Mr. Ed McCoy stated that the surface parking spaces are
intended to be utilized by the residents of those units.

Committee Member Ann Cothron thanked the applicant team for listening to
neighborhood and committee input and for adding both recycling and composting.
Further, she thanked the applicant team for the option of the architectural styles
because the site is in a historic area. She noted that there are some mature trees on the
site and asked the developer to preserve those trees. Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that they
plan to preserve the trees.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 364
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

Committee Member Paul Benjamin asked if the Coronado Neighborhood Association
has taken a position on the proposal and if that is something they normally would. Mr.
Paul Gilbert stated that the Coronado Neighborhood Association does not take
positions on zoning cases although the applicant team has met with many of their board
members and other stakeholders.

Committee Member Stephen Procaccini stated that he is glad that the homes will be
preserved. He asked if they will be restored to the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation
guidelines. He asked if egress from the parking structure onto Dayton Street will be
physically restricted to left turn only. Mr. Gilbert responded that the conservation
easement requires adherence to the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation guidelines.
He stated that there are no plans for a physical restriction to limit right-turns onto Dayton
Street. Mr. Ed McCoy added that the egress will be permitted to turn either left or right
but that the traffic report indicates that more than 90 percent of the traffic will be left turn
egress.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dr. Donna Reiner stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for more than 20 years
and is a local historian. The purpose of the neighborhood association and the Coronado
Neighborhood Conservation Plan is to preserve the unique character of our
neighborhood. The developer was responsive to neighborhood comments with
alterations early in the process but, from the images shown tonight, some of those
alterations have disappeared. Height is a central concern since there is not a single
residential complex at a height of seven stories. The increase in height will set a
precedent for future proposals along McDowell Road. The preservation of the historic
homes is being misused as rationale for increased height beyond that permitted in the
conservation plan. The conservation plan was created in response to the former
surgicenter on the site, the removal of historic homes, and the encroachment of
commercial properties into the neighborhood. Neither architectural option is consistent
with those that were shown to the neighborhood and the traditional option cannot be
called “Spanish Revival.” She asked the committee to continue the rezoning case and
modify the design by making a good faith effort to satisfy the neighborhood’s desire for
a maximum height of 5 stories on McDowell Road.

Mr. Cody Castelletti stated that he lives nearby and has been working with Fairfield
Residential to help move the project to a design that would be more compatible with the
historic character of the neighborhood. He stated that he does not know why there are
now two designs options as no residents have requested a contemporary design. The
site is limited to 48 feet by the CNSPD and that an increase beyond that should offer a
benefit to the historic neighborhood. As proposed, the project does not go far enough
and, if the contemporary design is chosen, the height should be limited to 48 feet
because it is incompatible with the area.

Mr. Ryan Boyd introduced himself as a representative of the Urban Phoenix Project
and stated that he is supportive of a few elements, concerned with a few, and agnostic
on the aesthetic. He stated that any design should be pedestrian friendly with ground



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 365
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

floor units opening onto the street and a mix of uses to create a vibrant streetscape
environment. He stated that they are concerned with the push for additional parking on
the site. The CNSPD standard of 2 spaces per unit is extremely high and that Transit
Line 17 (McDowell Road) carries the 7th highest volume of any route within the system.
The site is on an arterial street with a high volume bus system and is therefore equipped
to handle density.

Mr. Robert Warnicke stated that the request is to break the CNSPD by exempting the
site from its regulatory provisions and cautioned that this is a slippery slope. The
argument that the historic homes are under threat and their preservation warrants
additional intensity is misleading. The proposal is higher and denser than most and is
not situated between the 7s where the city is trying to promote intensity.

Ms. Jennifer O’Connor expressed concern with the 80 foot height and stated that it
would set precedent in the neighborhood. She expressed concern with the intensity and
asked that the density be reduced further. She asked why the developer would
decrease the number of units and add parking. She expressed concern regarding
pedestrian safety and urged that the design of the street is an important factor in safety.

Ms. Nancy Giles stated that the developer has used certain concessions as a
justification for ignoring some items that are important to the neighborhood. She
expressed concern with the parking supply not adhering to the CNSPD. She stated that
a stated goal of the CNSPD is that housing should be “in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood.” The architecture is very important and deserves certainty beyond
two options. Further, she expressed skepticism regarding the assertion that most
neighbors prefer the contemporary design. The site specific exemption creates a
precedent for how future developers will circumvent a conservation plan. She expressed
concern over the proposed height and traffic impact on Dayton Street and 11th Street.
She echoed Ms. O’Connor’s concerns regarding traffic safety concerns, especially on
Dayton Street north of Coronado.

APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that he is disappointed to hear concerns about the lack of
communication. There have been four neighborhood meetings including the last
meeting that was attended by several of the individuals who have spoken tonight. The
applicant team has gone above and beyond the requirements for neighborhood
engagement.

Regarding the assertion that the project is not doing enough to recognize the history of
the site, he stated that this site was home to the first surgicenter in the United States
and that there simply wasn’t enough time in the presentation. Regarding height, all
arguments asserting incompatibility require that Banner and its 250 feet of height
entitlement be ignored from consideration. Regarding the assertion that the project will
not be affordable to ordinary workers, the only other option available under the CNSPD
are single family homes and those are unaffordable also and continue to increase in
value. Regarding the design change, the design is not changing but they are instead



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 366
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

offering two options. At the last meeting, there was an immense amount of criticism
about the elevations on the basis that they were not modern enough, so the applicant
team is trying to provide an option to the committee. Regarding the criticism that the
historic homes are under threat of development by the applicant, Fairfield Residential
does not own the historic homes, but they have been included in the PUD to provide
certainty that they will be preserved. Regarding the pedestrian safety, there is a
stipulation that will require speed humps between McDowell Road and Coronado Road.
For speed humps north of Coronado Road, the applicant team does not have control of
that portion of street, but the neighbors can ask the city to install speed humps.
Regarding traffic impact, the traffic study objectively identifies that the proposed project
will produce fewer vehicle trips than what would be permitted by a medical office
building. He concluded by stating that there is a strong staff recommendation to approve
and that there is no opposition to the 48 foot building that is adjacent to residential
neighbors.

Mr. Ed McCoy stated that Phoenix is in a housing crisis and that there needs to be
flexibility in older plans since so much has changed in the past 37 years. The height of
80 feet is appropriate due to its location on a major arterial and adjacent to Banner
University Medical Center which is constructed to a height of 200 feet and approved for
250 feet.

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

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez asked Dr. Reiner about the conservation plan’s goal to
ensure affordable housing opportunities to all residents and what the neighborhood has
done to implement that goal. Dr. Donna Reiner stated that is outside the ability of the
neighborhood to address but that what has happened is that owners have squeezed out
renters and demolished or renovated and increased the rent. Vice Chair Nicole
Rodriguez asked Dr. Reiner if there are plans to update the conservation plan because
some items may be out of date. Dr. Reiner agreed that the conservation plan should be
updated with regard to some items that may have changed such as parking, but she
asserted that height remains a common denominator and that the guidance in the plan
is still relevant. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that the history of the Coronado
neighborhood suggests that while it was never redlined, it was established for working
class white families. Dr. Reiner agreed.

Committee Member Brent Kleinman stated that there has been significant progress
but more that can be done by working with the neighborhood. He suggested the item be
tabled until the February meeting because there was some confusion on the purpose of
tonight’s meeting and to allow for another meeting between the developer and
stakeholders before it returns to the committee for a recommendation. He also stated
that he would like to see a list of the people in support, opposition, concerns, and a
response from the applicant to each of the concerns. Chair Wagner asked if Committee
Member Kleinman is making a motion. Committee Member Kleinman declined.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 367
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

Committee Member Jeremy Thacker asked staff if the committee has the authority to
make aesthetic recommendations. Mr. Joshua Bednarek responded that in a
traditional rezoning case, the committee has the authority to require “general
conformance” to elevations. For a PUD, the committee is not only review design
guidelines but also elevations. In this case, the committee can give direction to the
commission and the city council. Committee Member Jeremy Thacker asked how
these standards would be enforced when the project moves toward construction and
what would happen if they were to make changes to the proposal. Mr. Joshua
Bednarek responded that there is a definition for “general conformance” that would
allow a maximum deviation of 10 percent from the plans submitted. If the changes
exceed 10 percent and “general conformance” is stipulated, the stipulation would need
to be amended through a public process. He then added that the applicant has agreed
to a stipulation that would require adherence to certain design elements for the Spanish
style or to return to the committee for ‘review and comment’ if the contemporary
aesthetic is chosen. Committee Member Jeremy Thacker noted that there is a limited
amount of land resources within the city and that density and height are often
necessary.

Committee Member Drew Bryck asked the applicant if they feel another month would
be productive in working toward a resolution. Mr. Ed McCoy stated that they have been
working on the project for two years and that of the 2,000 homes in the Coronado
neighborhood, only 5 have expressed concerns tonight and these individuals attended
many of the many neighborhood meetings. He stated that most of the concerns related
to height and architecture. Regarding architecture, Fairfield is agreeable with either of
the two aesthetic approaches. Regarding height, Fairfield has decreased the height on
Dayton Street from 5 to 4 stories, on Coronado Road from 3 to 1 stories, and the only
way to make the project work is to place 7 stories on McDowell Road which is a major
arterial street. He concluded by stating that he does not believe they will get to a point
where the height will be satisfactory to the opponents.

Committee Member Drew Bryck asked if the Spanish Revival style was shared early
enough to give the neighborhood time to review it. Mr. Ed McCoy responded that it was
part of the PUD and that they worked directly with Mr. Castelletti and Mr. Vigil on that
design for several months. He stated that the only distinctions from the preferences of
Mr. Castelletti and Mr. Vigil is that they wanted a maximum of 5 stories and no
balconies. The Spanish Revival style has been shared publicly for months and the
contemporary option is in response to more recent comments from the neighborhood.
Regarding affordability, he added that the rents are intended to provide missing middle
housing for tenants such as nurses, teachers, and police officers.

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez stated that 270,000 housing units are needed. She
stated that the parking requirements are arbitrary, but that housing demand is not and is
drastically needed. In reviewing the conservation plan, the 7 stories are outside of the
area that is being amended. She stated that 43 percent of households have 1 or fewer
vehicles available. If serious about reducing housing costs, the parking supply should
be reduced. Parking stalls in garages can range from $30,000 to $40,000 per space.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 368
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023

The applicant provided a thorough packet on neighborhood engagement, and she
indicated that the case should move forward tonight rather than being delayed another
month.

Committee Member G.G. George expressed support for a delay. She asked if the
applicant has a record of the citizens who attended each of the meetings. Mr. Paul
Gilbert responded that do and have provided that to the City of Phoenix as required.
Committee Member G.G. George asked staff what it would take to move this meeting
to another month so they applicant can provide a detailed account of who attended what
meeting. Mr. Joshua Bednarek indicated that the committee can make a motion to
continue the request to the next meeting with the direction that the applicant continue
working with the community. He added that the applicant has provided staff with
documentation of who they have met and worked with throughout the process.

Committee Member Brent Kleinman stated that he no longer feels a delay would be
productive. He expressed interest in making a motion. Mr. Bednarek explained that
Item No. 3 (Z-2-22-4) is the approval of the PUD and Item No. 4 (Z-15-22-4) is the
amendment to the CNSPD. He then presented 3 versions of stipulation language that
would 1) approve per the staff recommendation, 2) approve per the staff
recommendation and require the Spanish Revival elevations, or 3) approve per the staff
recommendation and require the more contemporary elevations.

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

MOTION
Committee Member Rick Mahrle made a motion to approve Z-15-22-4 per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Jason Matthews seconded to the motion.

DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that Committee Member Cothron is now attending the
meeting by phone only.

Committee Member Ann Cothron reestablished her attendance in the meeting thereby
bringing the quorum to 16 members (9 being required for a quorum).

Committee Member Ann Cothron suggested that there should be a pork-chop added
to the egress from the parking garage onto Dayton Street to require existing vehicles
travel southbound toward McDowell. She asked if this could be added as a friendly
amendment. Mr. Bednarek stated that the vote for the PUD (Z-2-22-4) has already
taken plan.

VOTE
12-2-1; motion to approve Z-15-22-4 per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee Members Benjamin, Bryck, Cothron, Jewett, Kleinman, Mahrle, Matthews,
Picos, Procaccini, Tedhams, Thacker, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Chair Wagner in support;
with Committee Members George and Searles opposed, and Schiller abstaining.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 369
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 9, 2023



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

No comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 370
ATTACHMENT E


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 2, 2023

ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-15-22-4 (Companion Case Z-2-22-4)
Proposal: Amendment to the Neighborhood Conservation Plan for the Coronado
Neighborhood for approximately 4.05 gross acres at the northwest corner
of 11th Street and McDowell Road.
Applicant: Ed McCoy, Fairfield Residential
Owner: Vikki Reed (REP, LLLP and Eleven Residential)
Representative: Kurt Waldier, Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 5/2/2022 Information only.
Encanto 1/9/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-2-1.

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

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-15-22-4, per the Encanto
Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Boyd
Second: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Simon
Opposition Present: Yes

Proposed Language:

Amend Chapter 5, Plan Regulations (Page 30) to read as follows:

***

11. Nonconforming Additions

- Residential additions which conform to the existing building side and rear yard
setback line will be allowed through blanket use permit approval. This will allow
side and rear yards to be reduced for nonconforming structures (which are
common in this neighborhood with many substandard size lots).

o The small nonconforming homes commonly found in the rear of single-family lots
shall not be expanded.

Page 371
SITE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

12. NORTHWEST CORNER OF 11TH STREET AND MCDOWELL ROAD

o THE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 11TH STREET AND
MCDOWELL ROAD, BOUND BY CORONADO ROAD TO THE NORTH,
MCDOWELL ROAD TO THE SOUTH, DAYTON STREET TO THE WEST, AND
11TH STREET TO THE EAST, EXCLUDING THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE HEIGHT,
SETBACK, AND PARKING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (PLAN
REGULATIONS 4, 6, AND 7) CONTAINED IN THIS PLAN, PURSUANT TO THE
APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. Z-2-22-4.

***

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 372
ATTACHMENT F



Subject: FW: Feb. 13th Meeting: Application No. Z-2-22-4, HP Zoning Boundary Adjustment for Proposed
PUD at the northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road



From: Laura Hahn
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:52 AM
To: PDD Historic Preservation
Subject: Feb. 13th Meeting: Application No. Z‐2‐22‐4, HP Zoning Boundary Adjustment for Proposed PUD at the
northwest corner of 11th Street and McDowell Road

Good morning,

As a resident of the Coronado neighborhood, I would like to submit commentary in favor of the development at 11th St
and McDowell. As someone who frequently walks and bikes around the neighborhood and the city, I would love to see
that strip of McDowell more "activated"‐‐it's just a string of empty buildings and lots right now. I'd love for that area to
feel like a part of the vibrant neighborhood rather than a dead zone.

Best,
Laura Hahn
1533 E Granada Rd.





Page 373
From: Emily Giannone
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Support for - Items #5 (Z-2-22-4) and #6 (Z-14-22-4)
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 10:33:50 PM




Dear Planning Commission,

I hope it’s not too late to share my message of support for the 11th Street and McDowell development project, to be
discussed in tomorrow’s meeting.

My husband and I have been residents of the Coronado Historic District for the past 12 years, homeowners in the
neighborhood for 11 years. I want to make sure you know my husband and I voice our strong support for Fairfield’s
11th St. & McDowell Rd. Mixed-Use Community Project.

We believe the project will provide numerous benefits for the neighborhood and surrounding community and is a far
better option than the current vacant Surgicenter and parking lot.

I understand just a few loud voices have opposed the project, but there are many, many more Coronado homeowners
who support this project. Fairfield has done an admirable job of working with the community over quite some time
to deliver a project that aligns with our wants and needs. I hope this show of support will be taken into consideration
during your meeting tomorrow. Thank you.

Regards,
Emily Giannone

Sent from my iPhone




Page 374
ATTACHMENT G

January 6, 2023

Encanto Village Planning committee
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
attn: Planner Nick Klimeck &
Sarah Stockman

RE: 11th and Mcdowell PUD - Z-2-22-4 (Companion Case Z-15-22-4):

Dear Committee,

My name is Artie A. Vigil III, I am a 17 year resident of the Coronado Historic District and reside at 2026 N
10th street, which is approximately two blocks from this site. I am unable to attend the January 9th
committee hearing.

I have been apart of a group of neighbors who have been working with the developer on trying to get
the project to be more compatible in both scale, diversity and traditional architecture with the
Coronado Neighborhood. The developer is seeking a substantial entitlement over what is allowed in
both height and density within the Coronado Conservation plan. In exchange for the increased density
I have been advocating for the saving of all historic homes, a transition in height towards the
neighborhood to the north and architecture that divides the buildings up into more traditional blocks,
rather than one large continuous building. Lastly and what I feel is more important for compatibility is a
quality architecture that will be timeless and compatible with the Historic Coronado Neighborhood.

I am in support of redevelopment of the Surical Center. However, at this scale, its important that the
project will not deteriorate quickly and become the largest eyesore of the Coronado Historic District.

These goals and principles are outlined as goals within the city of Phoenix. For example within the
General plan, one of the primary goals is to ensure certainty for our neighborhoods and protection of
our historic districts.

Design (pg 106): Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and
its various housing lifestyles through new development that is compatible in scale,
design and appearance.

Design (pg 107) Provide high quality urban design and amenities that reflect the
best of urban living at an appropriate village scale.

Historic Districts (pg110) Ensure new development and infill that is responsive to
the historic surroundings and is compatible in scale, massing, proportion and
materials.

Certainly the current plan has made improvements from the intial proposal. However, I'm very
concerned about the "Cruise Ship" extended balconies on the 7 story building.

Current Proposal: Cruise Ship




Page 375
The primary concern with these balconies extended over the street is how they evolve over time and
become eyesores for the adjacent neighbors and anyone passing bye. You can see this devolution of
extruded balconies a global blight.




Alternatively, places of high quality and character have a more organized street façade. Balconies
are minimal to not allow the visualization of furniture at 7 levels above ground. They don’t become
storage areas for residents.

San Antonio:
Notice all balconies are recessed within a formal façade. This project is within the Pearl Brewery Historic
neighborhood.




Santa Barbara, California:
Balconies are either fully recessed into the building. Or Juliet shallow balconies which do not allow for
furniture, storage or clothing. The architectural façade is an organized composition and the balconies
are minimal and used as architectural accents within the overall design. Only a few residential units
have balconies.




Page 376
Phoenix - 1st street and McDowell.
Not every unit has a patio. If they do, they are either fully recessed or a Juliet style.




Page 377
4357 Goldwater Blvd, Scottsdale AZ

All balconies are recessed into the façade and organized within the façade in groupings. Not every
residential unit has a patio or juliet balcony. No balconies extend beyond the façade of the building.




Page 378
New York City

The most expensive real estate in New York City overlooking Central Park does not have balonies
extending beyond the façade.




Therefore, I'd request that the committee stipulate that:

1) All balconies are either fully recessed into façade of the building.

2) Or Juliet balconies do not extend beyond the façade more than 2'-0".

3) CCR's that ensure that balconies and patios do not become eye sores for use as storage.


Thank you,



Arthur A. Vigil III, Coronado Resident




Page 379
From: Rick Krussman
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Destruction of PHOENIX CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT
Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 1:19:59 PM



File number 100537-000001
Z-2-22
Z-15-22

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rick Krussman
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: Destruction of PHOENIX CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT
To:




---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rick Krussman
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:13 PM
Subject: Destruction of PHOENIX CORONADO HISTORIC DISTRICT
To: joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov , Kurt Waldier
, ,



I am writing as I continue to oppose this outrageous attack
on this Historic District. I am a property owner very near to
this proposed monstrosity.
I and my many neighbors purchased property in this
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT believing that it was a
Protected District. Now we are faced with this project that
completely is opposite of what a Historic District is. The city
of Phoenix MUST honor its code and protect Coronado from
this invasion of GREED.
The density of the project is absurd and will upset the entire
nature of the community as well as all the nearby neighbors.
There are so many things wrong with this project--parking
that is insufficient to house 271 households, increased traffic
and crime, gross annoyance to the residents immediately
adjacent, and the aesthetics of high rise buildings in a
Historic District. I am sick of the City allowing these high
density projects built right onto the roadway. The Planners,



Page 380
in my opinion, have no clue as to what is valued by our
citizens and how these projects destroy the peacefulness in
our Historic Districts.

The processes by which citizens must comply to appeal the
moves by these greedy developers and poor Planners makes
me angry as Hell. We should not have to attend virtual
meetings, write opposition letters, etc when in fact this is a
PROTECTED HISTORIC DISTRICT. It is a no brainer situation
that it should be DENIED.

Please do not allow this project and RUIN Coronado. Do the
right thing for once!

Rick Krussman




Page 381



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-61-22-7 - Southeast Corner of 9th Avenue and
Fillmore Street (Ordinance G-7099)

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, and consider adopting Rezoning
Application Z-61-22-7 to rezone the site from C-3 CMOD (General Commercial,
Capitol Mall Overlay District), P-1 (Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited) and R-5 RI
(Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill District) to WU Code T5:5 CMOD
(Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 District, Capitol Mall Overlay District) and WU
Code T5:5 (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 District) to allow multifamily
residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-3 CMOD (1.37 acres), P-1 (0.19 acres) and R-5 RI (1.68 acres)
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T5:5 CMOD (1.37 acres) and WU Code T5:5 (1.87 acres)
Acreage: 3.24
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: Mercy Hill Development, LLC
Applicant: Trumont Group Arizona
Representative: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Central City Village Planning Committee heard this case on Jan. 9,
2023, and continued the case, by a vote of 12-3-1. The Central City Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Feb. 13, 2023, and recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-6.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Feb. 2, 2023, and
recommended a continuance to the March 2, 2023, meeting, without fee, by a vote of 8
-0-1. The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and recommended
approval, per the Central City Village Planning Committee recommendation, by a vote
of 6-1-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed for a public hearing by a
community member on March 6, 2023.


Page 382


Location
Southeast corner of 9th Avenue and Fillmore Street
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 516 and 555 N. 9th Ave.; 745 W. Fillmore St.; and 820 W. Taylor St.

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




Page 383
Brick Bell Tower
Entryway Tower




Brick Arches
SEC 9TH AVENUE & FILLMORE STREET | PERSPECIVE BUILDING ELEVATIONS
03/30/2023 NORTH
SEC 9TH AVENUE & FILLMORE STREET | PERSPECIVE BUILDING ELEVATIONS
03/30/2023 NORTH
SEC 9TH AVENUE & FILLMORE STREET | PERSPECIVE BUILDING ELEVATIONS
03/30/2023 NORTH
1HZ2Q6WUHHW3DUDOOHO3DUNLQJ
1HZ2Q6WUHHW &RPPHUFLDO/HDVLQJ
1HZ&XUEIRU West Fillmore Street 3DUDOOHO3DUNLQJ *DUDJH6SDFHZLWK
/DQGVFDSH 3UHVHUYHG%HOO7RZHU
6WUHHW)URQWDJH(QWUDQFH
%XPS2XW
([LVWLQJ%ULFN$UFKHVWREH3UHVHUYHG



52:7ULDQJOH
·[·[
([LVWLQJ7RZHUWR 2-Story 2-Story
3UHVHUYHG%ULFN$UFDGH)URQWDJH Carriage Units Carriage Units
EH3UHVHUYHG $SSUR[LPDWHO\/LQHDU)HHW
$SSUR[LPDWHO\6) 
/HDVLQJ2IÀFH
Gated Entry
5RRIWRS$PHQLW\ 2SHQ'XULQJ'D\WLPH
6) 




North 7th Avenue

+LVWRULF/DQGVFDSH6WULS
7XFN8QGHU7DQGHP
3DUNLQJ




6HFRQGDU\([LW2QO\
(PHUJHQF\9HKLFDO
$FFHVV
7XFN8QGHU
North 9th Avenue 7DQGHP3DUNLQJ


&RPPRQ(QWU\
Not a Part
5HOD[DWLRQ&RXUW\DUG
6)



6WRUHIURQW)URQWDJH




52:7ULDQJOH
·[·[ Trash/
8QORDGLQJ




&RPPRQ
Entry +LVWRULF/DQGVFDSH6WULS Storefront
)URQWDJH West Taylor Street




SEC 9TH AVE & FILLMORE STREET | CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 0 50 100 200

04/03/2023 NORTH SCALE
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-61-22-7) FROM C-3 CMOD (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, CAPITOL MALL OVERLAY DISTRIC), P-1
(PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE PARKING, LIMITED), AND R-5 RI
(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL INFILL
DISTRICT) TO WU CODE T5:5 CMOD (WALKABLE URBAN
CODE, TRANSECT 5:5 DISTRICT, CAPITOL MALL OVERLAY
DISTRICT) AND WU CODE T5:5 (WALKABLE URBAN CODE,
TRANSECT 5:5 DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.24-acre property located at the southeast

corner of 9th Avenue and Fillmore Street in a portion of Section 6, Township 1 North,

Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from

1.37 acres of “C-3 CMOD” (General Commercial, Capitol Mall Overlay District), 0.19-

acres of “P-1” (Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited), and 1.68 acres of “R-5 RI”

(Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill District) to 1.37 acres of “WU Code




Page 384
T5:5 CMOD” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 District, Capitol Mall Overlay District)

and 1.87 acres of “WU Code T5:5” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 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 ground floor brick arcade with arches along Fillmore Street and tower
features along Fillmore and Taylor streets shall be provided, as depicted on
the building elevations date stamped December 15, 2022 and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

2. A minimum of one common entry shall be provided for each street frontage,
except for buildings where every unit has private entry directly to the street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at a
minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces near
entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The
station shall include but not limited to: standard repair tools affixed to the
station; a tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows
pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. The developer shall maintain the existing width of the historic landscape area
within the right-of-way along 9th Avenue and Taylor Street, and replenish the




Page 385
landscaping per the landscape standards of Section 1309 of the Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

5. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a
minimum 8-foot-wide landscape area between the back of curb and sidewalk
along Fillmore Street with landscaping consistent with the landscape
standards of Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

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

6. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been
reviewed and approved by the city.

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

8. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of 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.

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

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




Page 386
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 387
EXHIBIT A

A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE STONE IN HANDHOLE (1.50’ DOWN) MARKING THE
INTERSECTION OF FILMORE STREET AND 9TH AVENUE FROM WHICH A 3-INCH
CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP FLUSH MARKING THE INTERSECTION OF
FILMORE STREET AND 7TH AVENUE BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES
08 SECONDS EAST 693.92 FEET, SAID DESCRIBED LINE BEING THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST 526.30 FEET
ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF SAID FILMORE STREET TO THE NORTHERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE CENTERLINE OF A 17 FOOT PUBLIC ALLEY
ABANDONED BY DOCUMENT NO. 1997-0329708, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST 155.50 FEET
ALONG SAID ALLEY CENTERLINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 20
OF BLOCK R, OF UNIVERSITY ADDITION, BOOK 1 OF MAPS, PAGE 7, RECORDS
OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 178.45 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 20, AND LOTS 18 AND 16 OF SAID BLOCK
R TO THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, OF TAYLOR COURTYARD APARTMENTS, IN
BOOK 425 OF MAPS, PAGE 50 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST 133.45 FEET
ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST 38.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE MONUMENT LINE OF TAYLOR STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST 348.01 FEET
ALONG SAID MONUMENT LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR STREET &
9TH AVENUE;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST 326.69 FEET
ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF SAID 9TH AVENUE TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;




Page 388
Page 389
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022

Central City Village Planning January 9, 2023
Committee Hearing Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 2, 2023

Request From: C-3 CMOD (General Commercial, Capitol
Mall Overlay District) (1.37 acres),
P-1 (Passenger Automobile Parking,
Limited) (0.19 acres), and
R-5 RI (Multifamily Residence District,
Residential Infill District) (1.68 acres)
Request To: WU Code T5:5 CMOD (Walkable Urban
Code, Transect 5:5 District, Capitol Mall
Overlay District) (1.37 acres) and
WU Code T5:5 (Walkable Urban Code,
Transect 5:5 District) (1.87 acres)
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Location: Southeast corner of 9th Avenue and
Fillmore Street
Owner: Mercy Hill Development, LLC
Applicant: Trumont Group Arizona
Representative Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial
Collector
Fillmore Street 22-foot south half street
Street
Local
Street Map Classification 9th Avenue 30-foot east half street
Street
Local
Taylor Street 38-foot north half street
Street




Page 390
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022



General Plan Conformity
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Encourage high-density housing and
high intensity employment uses to locate adjacent or close to transit stations
per adopted transit district plans.
The site is located within the Capitol Extension Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
area and within half-mile of the planned light rail station at 7th Avenue and
Washington Street / Jefferson Street. The proposed multifamily development is
appropriate at this location given the site’s proximity to high-capacity transit, the
downtown area, and location within a TOD area.

CREATE AN EVEN MORE VIBRANT DOWNTOWN CORE VALUE;
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLES: Encourage new
development to maintain the existing streetscape patterns to preserve the
character of the area; Encourage the development of height transition and
design standards that support new development while enhancing the integrity
and livability of established neighborhoods.
The subject site directly abuts Downtown Code zoning and consists of the majority of
a block immediately west of downtown. The establishment of the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code on the site will allow for new housing adjacent to downtown with design
standards and a transition in height that enhance the integrity and livability of the
neighborhood.
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 proposed development will provide shaded detached sidewalks on
all three street frontages, which will reduce the urban heat island effect while also
improving thermal comfort to site users and the surrounding neighborhood.


Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework – See Background
Item No. 3.
Capitol Mall Overlay District – See Background Item No. 7.

Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 8.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 10.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 11.



Page 391
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022



Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 12.


Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Church R-5 RI, C-3 CMOD, P-1
Single-family and R-5 RI, R-5 RI (Approved
North (across Fillmore
multifamily residential, R-3), P-1, P-1 (Approved
Street)
and parking R-3)
Southeast Multifamily residential C-3 CMOD
South (across Taylor
Warehouse C-3 CMOD ACOD
Street)
East Commercial retail DTC-Commercial Corridor
Single-family and
West (across 9th Avenue) multifamily residential, R-5 RI, P-1
and parking

Walkable Urban Code *variance required or
T5:5 design alternative
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Gross Acreage N/A 3.24
Total Number of Units No maximum 122
Density No maximum 37.65 dwelling units
per acre
Building Height 56-foot maximum 50 feet (Met)
Min. Parking – Per Section 202 spaces 202 spaces (Met)
• 10% reduction when
greater than 1,320 feet
from a light rail stop
Bicycle Parking – Per 50 spaces Not specified
Section 1307.H.6.d
• Minimum 0.25 per
residential unit, with a
maximum of 50 required
spaces




Page 392
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022


Walkable Urban Code *variance required or
T5:5 design alternative
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Main Building Setbacks
Fillmore Street (Primary 12-foot maximum Main Building: 10 feet
Frontage) (Met)

Carriage Units: 9 feet
(Met)
9th Avenue (Secondary 10-foot maximum 10 feet (Met)
Frontage)
Taylor Street (Secondary 10-foot maximum 10 feet (Met)
Frontage)
Side/Rear (East/South) 0-foot minimum Not specified
Parking Setbacks
Fillmore Street (Primary 30-foot minimum or behind Behind building (Met)
Frontage) building

9th Avenue (Secondary 20-foot minimum, 10-foot Behind building (Met)
Frontage) landscape setback from street
right-of-way
Taylor Street (Secondary 20-foot minimum, 10-foot 20-foot setback, 20-
Frontage) landscape setback from street foot landscape
right-of-way setback (Met)
Side/Rear (East/South) 0-foot minimum Not specified
Lot Requirements
Lot Coverage 80 percent maximum 38 percent (Met)
Primary Building Frontage 70 percent minimum 85 percent (Met)
(Fillmore Street)
Secondary Building 50 percent minimum 90 percent (Met)
Frontage (9th Avenue)
Secondary Building 50 percent minimum 56 percent (Met)
Frontage (Taylor Street)
Open Space 5 percent minimum 5.5 percent (Met)
Frontage Types Allowed
Primary and Secondary All frontages or alternative Fillmore Street:
Building Frontages frontages per Section Arcade (Met)
1305.B.1.c
9th Avenue and
Taylor Street:
Storefront (Met)




Page 393
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022


Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 3.24-acre site located at the southeast corner of 9th
Avenue and Fillmore Street from C-3 CMOD (General Commercial, Capitol Mall
Overlay District), P-1 (Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited), and R-5 RI
(Multifamily Residence District, Residential Infill District) to WU Code T5:5
(Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5) and WU Code T5:5 CMOD (Walkable
Urban Code, Transect 5:5, Capitol Mall Overlay District) to allow multifamily
residential use. The subject site is located directly west of downtown and
developed with the Mercy Hill Church and accessory surface parking.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
2. The subject site and properties to the north and south are designated as
Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Map. West of the subject site, across
9th Avenue, is designated as Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
Abutting the subject site to the east is designated as Mixed Use.

The proposed zoning district, WU Code T5:5, allows multifamily residential uses,
as well as a range of commercial uses. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with
the General Plan Land Use Map designation of Commercial.




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




Page 394
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022


3. Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework
The Transit Oriented Development
Strategic Policy Framework is part of
the city’s General Plan which identified
planning typologies to describe urban
environments. The subject site is within
half-mile of the planned light rail station
at 7th Avenue and Washington Street /
Jefferson Street. The identified
environment for the station is Medium
Urban Center. Medium Urban Center is
a place type characterized by medium
intensity with building heights typically
from three to six stories with incentive
heights of up to 10 stories. Land uses
may include destination retail and
entertainment, mid-rise living, and low-
rise office employment. The proposed TOD Strategic Policy Framework
four-story residential development is Placetypes, Source: Planning and
consistent with the Medium Urban Development Department
Center placetype, given the distance
from the station and the neighborhood
context.

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING ZONING
4. The subject site is currently developed
with the Mercy Hill Church, which
contains several buildings, and
accessory surface parking with a mix of
zoning, including C-3, R-5 RI, and P-1.
The surrounding area contains a mix of
uses, including warehouses and
multifamily residential within a C-3
district to the south, residential uses
within R-5 RI zoning to the west and
north, and commercial retail within the
Downtown Code to the east.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department

PROPOSAL
5. The proposed T5:5 District is described as a medium-high-intensity mixed-use
fabric characterized by a broad mix of buildings that integrate retail, offices, live-
work, and residential units. As shown on the conceptual site plan attached as an
exhibit, the proposal is to redevelop the property into a new four-story multifamily


Page 395
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022


residential building with a total of 122 dwelling units. The development will be
designed with frontages near the streets to create a pedestrian-friendly
environment with surface parking located in the rear of the site. Vehicular access
will be through driveways on Fillmore Street and Taylor Street. In order to
guarantee access to the sidewalk for residents, Stipulation No. 2 requires the
building to provide a minimum of one common entry for each street frontage.

6. Section 1304.C of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all sides of a building
exhibit design continuity and multiple exterior accent materials. The provided
conceptual elevations attached as an exhibit show multiple exterior accent
colors, materials, and design continuity throughout all sides of the building.
Additionally, the conceptual building elevations demonstrate retention of
architectural features of the existing church on the subject site, including a
ground floor brick arcade with arches along Fillmore Street and several tower
features. Therefore, staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 to require inclusion of
these features in the new development, creating an enhanced design with an
architectural connection to the past.

AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
7. Capitol Mall Overlay District
The southern portion of the subject site is within the Capitol Mall Overlay District.
The Capitol Mall Overlay District acknowledges the varied uses of the area
including governmental offices, industrial and commercial businesses, and
historic residences. The purpose of this district is to prevent a concentration of
certain uses which can restrict businesses and residences from functioning
normally and contributes to the deterioration of the business and living
environment, the downgrading of property values, and the diminishment of
health, safety and general welfare conditions in the area.




Capitol Mall Overlay District Map, Source: Planning and Development Department



Page 396
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022



8. 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.

9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. 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. Per Section 1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance and as stipulated, the
development will provide bicycle parking for residents and guests, in addition to
providing a bicycle repair station, encouraging the use of biking as an alternative
mode of transportation. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 3.

10. 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 proposal includes shaded,
detached sidewalks which will increase the thermal comfort for those walking to
and from nearby transit and those patronizing local businesses, as addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5. The proposal also includes bicycle parking and a repair
station, as required in Stipulation No. 3.

11. 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. The Walkable Urban Code requires detached sidewalks along street
frontages and a 75 percent minimum shade requirement for public sidewalks and
internal pedestrian pathways. The proposal will maintain the existing detached
sidewalks along 9th Avenue and Taylor Street, replenishing the landscaping
behind the back of curb, and a new detached sidewalk along Fillmore Street.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5.



Page 397
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022



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

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time this staff report was written, staff has received two letters in
opposition to this request. Concerns include a desire for preservation of the
existing structure and negative impacts of the proposed development on the
historic character of the surrounding area.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department commented that the developer shall
maintain and replenish the existing landscape area within the right-of-way along
9th Avenue and Taylor Street, that the developer shall construct a detached
sidewalk along Fillmore Street, that the developer shall submit a traffic impact
analysis, and that the developer shall construct all required street improvements
within and adjacent to the development, including complying with ADA
standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 through 7.

15. The City of Phoenix Water Services Department has noted the property has
existing water and sewer mains that can potentially serve the proposed
development, however water capacity is a dynamic condition that can change
over time due to a variety of factors.

16. The Public Transit Department commented that the development should provide
direct access to the sidewalk through common entries to ensure pedestrian-
oriented access for residents of the building. This is addressed in Stipulation No.
2.

17. The Aviation Department commented that the property owner shall record a
Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the
existence, and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 8.

18. The Fire Department commented that there were no anticipated issues with the
case, but that the buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.




Page 398
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022


19. The Historic Preservation Office commented that the existing structure is subject
to a 30-day demolition review because it is a historic-age building. At the time
this staff report was written, the developer filed a demolition permit, which was
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 17, 2022. The
Commission declined to hold a vote regarding initiation of historic designation for
the property.

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
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 9.

21. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution
in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required
by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.

22. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Zoning adjustments, abandonments or other formal actions may also be
required.

Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and
with the Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework vision for this
area.

2. The proposal provides a new multifamily housing option to contribute to the mix
of housing types in the area and will help alleviate the housing shortage in
Phoenix.

3. As stipulated, the proposal will enhance connectivity in the immediate vicinity by
providing pedestrian, bicycle, and shade amenities consistent with the TOD
Strategic Policy Framework and other policy plans.

Stipulations

1. A ground floor brick arcade with arches along Fillmore Street and tower
features along Fillmore and Taylor streets shall be provided, as depicted on
the building elevations date stamped December 15, 2022 and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.



Page 399
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022



2. A minimum of one common entry shall be provided for each street frontage,
except for buildings where every unit has private entry directly to the street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at a
minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces near
entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The
station shall include but not limited to: standard repair tools affixed to the
station; a tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows
pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. The developer shall maintain the existing width of the historic landscape area
within the right-of-way along 9th Avenue and Taylor Street, and replenish the
landscaping per the landscape standards of Section 1309 of the Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

5. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a
minimum 8-foot-wide landscape area between the back of curb and sidewalk
along Fillmore Street with landscaping consistent with the landscape
standards of Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

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

6. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been
reviewed and approved by the city.



Page 400
Staff Report: Z-61-22-7
December 30, 2022



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

8. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of 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.

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

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

Writer
Anthony Grande
December 30, 2022

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan Date Stamped December 15, 2022
Conceptual Elevations Date Stamped December 15, 2022 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (11 pages)




Page 401
C-3
PIERCE ST
R-5 RI


DTC

9TH AVE
10TH AVE
R-3 *
P-1 DTC

Roosevelt South
P-1 Z-83-96
Commercial 1
P-1

7TH AVE FILLMORE ST
P-1
C-3
C-3 HP GR TAYLOR ST
Z-128-04 AN DTC
D C-3 CMOD
AV Van Buren
E ACOD*
Z-92-17
R-5 Arts Culture
RI HP and Small Capitol Mall
Z-128-04 Business Overlay Overlay
POLK ST District
PUD*
Z-63-16 C-3

IMiles
MC DOWELL RD
I - 10
Z-61-22


VAN BUREN ST
0.035 0.0175 0 0.035 JEFFERSON ST

CENTRAL CITY VILLAGE BUCKEYE RD


CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 I - 17
LOWER BUCKEYE RD


40TH ST


CENTRAL AVE
32ND ST
7TH ST
7TH AVE 16TH ST 24TH ST

19TH AVE




APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Trumont Group Arizona
FROM:
C-3 CMOD ( 1.37 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-61-22
DATE:
9/8/2022
REVISION DATES:
P-1 ( 0.19 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
R-5 RI ( 1.68 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP
WU T5:5 CMOD ( 1.37 a.c.)
3.24 Acres QS 11-26 F-8 TO: WU T5:5 ( 1.87 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-3 CMOD, P-1, R-5 RI 20, N/A, 73 24, N/A, 87
WU T5:5 CMOD, WU T5:5 No Maximum, No Maximum 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\2022\Z-61-22.mxd
Page 402
C-3
PIERCE ST
R-5 RI


DTC

9TH AVE
10TH AVE
R-3 *
P-1 DTC

Roosevelt South
P-1 Z-83-96
Commercial 1
P-1

7TH AVE FILLMORE ST
P-1
C-3
C-3 HP GR TAYLOR ST
Z-128-04 AN DTC
D C-3 CMOD
AV Van Buren
E ACOD*
Z-92-17
R-5 Arts Culture
RI HP and Small Capitol Mall
Z-128-04 Business Overlay Overlay
POLK ST District
PUD*
Z-63-16 C-3

IMiles
MC DOWELL RD
I - 10
Z-61-22


VAN BUREN ST
0.035 0.0175 0 0.035 JEFFERSON ST

CENTRAL CITY VILLAGE BUCKEYE RD


CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 I - 17
LOWER BUCKEYE RD


40TH ST


CENTRAL AVE
32ND ST
7TH ST
7TH AVE 16TH ST 24TH ST

19TH AVE




APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Trumont Group Arizona
FROM:
C-3 CMOD ( 1.37 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-61-22
DATE:
9/8/2022
REVISION DATES:
P-1 ( 0.19 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
R-5 RI ( 1.68 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP
WU T5:5 CMOD ( 1.37 a.c.)
3.24 Acres QS 11-26 F-8 TO: WU T5:5 ( 1.87 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-3 CMOD, P-1, R-5 RI 20, N/A, 73 24, N/A, 87
WU T5:5 CMOD, WU T5:5 No Maximum, No Maximum 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\2022\Z-61-22.mxd
Page 403
New On-Street &RPPHUFLDO/HDVLQJ
New Curb for %ULFN$UFDGH)URQWDJH
West Fillmore Street Parallel Parking *DUDJH6SDFHZLWK
/DQGVFDSH 6WUHHW)URQWDJH(QWUDQFH
Bump Out New On-Street Parallel Parking




Common
Entry
2-Story 2-Story
/HDVLQJ2IÀFH
ROW Triangle Carriage Units Carriage Units
Live / Work Units at Ground Floor
·[·[ First Floor:
Community Room
.LWFKHQ
Tower Gated Entry
4th Floor: Rooftop Amenity (Open During Daytime)
Fitness Center
(5,600 S.F). Tower



2XWGRRU6RFLDO6SDFH
(500 S.F.)
North 7th Avenue

+LVWRULF/DQGVFDSH6WULS
7XFN8QGHU7DQGHP
Parking




6HFRQGDU\([LW2QO\
(PHUJHQF\9HKLFDO
$FFHVV
7XFN8QGHU
Page 404
North 9th Avenue Tandem Parking


Common Entry
Not a Part
5HOD[DWLRQ&RXUW\DUG
(500 S.F.)
Community
Garden
(1,200 S.F.)
Storefront Frontage

Tower
Trash/
Unloading
ROW Triangle
·[·[




Tower
Common +LVWRULF/DQGVFDSH6WULS
Entry Storefront
Frontage West Taylor Street




SEC 9TH AVE & FILLMORE STREET | CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 0 50 100 200

11/17/2022 NORTH SCALE
FILLMORE STREET
(FACING SOUTH)
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIRED: 70% (WU T5:5)
BUILDING FRONTAGE PROVIDED: 85%



270’
158’




50’
30’



BRICK ARCADE




TAYLOR STREET
Page 405 (FACING NORTH)
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIRED: 50% (WU T5:5)
BUILDING FRONTAGE PROVIDED: 56%

182’ CARRIAGE UNITS FRONT FILLMORE.
NO FRONTAGE ALONG TAYLOR.




50’
30’




SEC 9TH AVE & FILLMORE STREET | CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
10/26/2022
9TH AVENUE
(FACING EAST)
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIRED: 50% (WUT5:5)
BUILDING FRONTAGE PROVIDED: 90%

242’




50’




PRIMARY STRUCTURE REAR
Page 406 (FACING WEST)
BUILDING REAR IS INTERNAL TO SITE.
NO FRONTAGE.




50’




SEC 9TH AVE & FILLMORE STREET | CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
10/26/2022
Page 407
New On-Street &RPPHUFLDO/HDVLQJ
New Curb for %ULFN$UFDGH)URQWDJH
Parallel Parking *DUDJH6SDFHZLWK
/DQGVFDSH West Fillmore Street 6WUHHW)URQWDJH(QWUDQFH
Bump Out New On-Street Parallel Parking




Common
Entry
2-Story 2-Story
/HDVLQJ2IÀFH
ROW Triangle Carriage Units Carriage Units
Live / Work Units at Ground Floor
·[·[ First Floor:
Community Room
.LWFKHQ
Tower Gated Entry
4th Floor: Rooftop Amenity (Open During Daytime)
Fitness Center
(5,600 S.F). Tower



2XWGRRU6RFLDO6SDFH
(500 S.F.)

New On-Street
North 7th Avenue

Parallel Parking
7XFN8QGHU7DQGHP
Parking
+LVWRULF/DQGVFDSH6WULS




6HFRQGDU\([LW2QO\
(PHUJHQF\9HKLFDO
$FFHVV
7XFN8QGHU
Page 408
Tandem Parking
North 9th Avenue

Common Entry
Not a Part
5HOD[DWLRQ&RXUW\DUG
(500 S.F.)
Community
Garden
(1,200 S.F.)
Storefront Frontage

Tower
Trash/
Unloading
ROW Triangle
·[·[




Tower
+LVWRULF/DQGVFDSH6WULS Storefront
Frontage West Taylor Street
Common New On-Street Parallel Parking
Entry




SEC 9TH AVE & FILLMORE STREET | CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 0 50 100 200

10/27/2022 NORTH SCALE
FILLMORE STREET
(FACING SOUTH)
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIRED: 70% (WU T5:5)
BUILDING FRONTAGE PROVIDED: 85%



270’
158’




50’
30’



BRICK ARCADE




TAYLOR STREET
Page 409 (FACING NORTH)
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIRED: 50% (WU T5:5)
BUILDING FRONTAGE PROVIDED: 56%

182’ CARRIAGE UNITS FRONT FILLMORE.
NO FRONTAGE ALONG TAYLOR.




50’
30’




SEC 9TH AVE & FILLMORE STREET | CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
10/26/2022
9TH AVENUE
(FACING EAST)
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIRED: 50% (WUT5:5)
BUILDING FRONTAGE PROVIDED: 90%

242’




50’




PRIMARY STRUCTURE REAR
Page 410 (FACING WEST)
BUILDING REAR IS INTERNAL TO SITE.
NO FRONTAGE.




50’




SEC 9TH AVE & FILLMORE STREET | CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
10/26/2022
From: beatrice moore
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: beatrice moore
Subject: Fwd: MercyHill Church Development, 745 W. Fillmore Street
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:28:44 PM
Attachments: MercyHill Letter to Planning 111222.pdf
Mercyhill Church Site Concept.pdf
Mercyhill Church Site Norris Design Elevations.pdf


All -

Since Anthony Grande will be out of the office until December 4th, could you please make sure the attached e-mail and contents is included in his file on the Trumont Group MercyHill
redevelopment project, which I was told could possibly be on the December CCVPC agenda. Thank you.

Beatrice Moore


Begin forwarded message:

From: beatrice moore
Subject: MercyHill Church Development, 745 W. Fillmore Street
Date: November 12, 2022 at 1:15:20 PM MST
To: Yassamin Ansari
Cc: Kate Gallego , Aaron T Kane , Laura Pastor , Deborah Stark
, Ann O'Brien , Carlos Garcia , Betty Guardado ,
Jim Waring , Sal DiCiccio , Helana Ruter , Ashley Harder
, Anthony M Grande , shane Essert , Nancy Hill , "g.g.
george" , James McPherson , Roger Brevoort , Ryan Boyd , bob graham


Dear Councilwoman Ansari -

Please find attached a letter from Grand Avenue Arts and Preservation regarding this proposed development in our neighborhood.

I have also attached some photos of the interior of the 1946 church sanctuary; the 1946 red brick colonnades; and the 1956 red brick bell tower. Also, included are the most current plans
we have from Trumont Group for their project.

And here is a link to a Fox New 10 interview regarding preservation of a portion of the original church buildings that was taped on 11/08/22 (the segment starts at the 13:45
mark: https://www.fox10phoenix.com/video/1141314 [fox10phoenix.com]).

Thank you in advance for your time in reviewing the attachments.

Best Regards,

Beatrice Moore, Director
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
602.391.4016
muppetsrealmom@gmail.com




Page 411
Page 412
Page 413
Beatrice Moore, Director
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
602.391.4016
muppetsrealmom@gmail.com




Page 414
From: gggfabgal@outlook.com
To: Sarah Stockham
Cc: Geno Koman
Subject: Fw: Request
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:48:46 PM
Attachments: MercyHill Church property.doc



Hi Sarah,

Here is the letter I wish to have distributed to the Central City Village Planning Committee.

Thank you,

GGG


I sent the attached to Councilwoman Ansari and the planners for the MercyHill Church, and
have been asked by the Grand Avenue group to send it to you and the members of the Central
City Planning Committee.

Would greatly appreciate it if you will ensure that the members of Central City Village Planning
Committee receive it prior to the meeting where they will consider the subject of MercyHill
Church.

I am a member of Encanto Village Planning Committee, so understand the responsibility they
face in making a decision on this property.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

G.G. George




Page 415
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition




HISTORIC FRANKLIN SCHOOL



October 27, 2022
Via Email
RE: MercyHill Church property


Dear Councilwoman Ansari,

Grand Avenue and its environs have always been part of the idea that created Phoenix.
The most cohesive part of its’ history is the portion from Five Points (Van Buren/7th
Avenue/and Grand) to Six Points (McDowell/19th Avenue/and Grand).

Prior to Grand being paved in 1888, it was called Lower Fort McDowell-Wickenburg
Wagon Road. As I noted in my book, “The Arizona State Fair”, the neighborhood known
today as the F.Q. Story Historic District was mapped in 1867- 68, and bounded on the
west by the Lower Fort McDowell-Wickenburg Wagon Road. By 1889, the Grand
Avenue streetcar line extended to Six Points.

The Story Historic District is adjacent to Fairview Place Historic District and Encanto-
Palmcroft Historic District, both of which are adjacent to the Del Norte Place Historic
District. Grand Avenue is also adjacent to Roosevelt, Oakland and Woodland Historic
Districts. Anything that disturbs the historic setting of Grand Avenue has repercussions,
like earthquake aftershocks, to affect the adjacent historic districts. All of these
elements are part of the undivided whole of Phoenix history.

The MercyHill Church was designed by Lescher & Mahoney as part of Phoenix’s post
World War ll history in 1946. The façade is remarkably similar to the pre-war Clubhouse
at Encanto Park designed by the same firm. As I wrote in another book, “Phoenix’s
Greater Encanto-Palmcroft Neighborhood”, beneath a picture of the Encanto Park


Page 416
Clubhouse, “Completed in 1937 by the architectural firm of Lescher & Mahoney, it has a
Spanish tile roof and an arched arcade.” MercyHill Church has these same features.
Encanto Park has been listed by Forbes Magazine as one of the 10 best parks in the U.S.

The Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition (PHNC) is composed of people who live
throughout the historic neighborhoods within the city. We come together because we
value the history of Phoenix, and we seek to share our love of our city’s historic
neighborhoods to preserve not only the buildings, but also help stabilize and build
strong communities.

We are concerned about the damaging impact of this proposed project on the existing
neighborhoods and the larger Grand Avenue community. While the MercyHill Church
may not be technically historical, it is certainly historically significant due to the original
church design by Lescher & Mahoney.

The Coalition is requesting that the church façade, the sanctuary, and the arched arcade
be incorporated into the forthcoming development. These features could be blended
into a signature design that could become a selling point for the redevelopment, and tie
this development into the earlier history of Phoenix.

We also request from the developer an agreement with the Grand Avenue Arts &
Preservation (GAP), Grand Avenue Members Association (GAMA), and the Coalition
stipulating these conditions prior to any demolition.

Thank you for your time and attention to this information.

G.G. George, President
Encanto Citizens Association &
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition
1102 W. Palm Lane
602-252-3151






Page 417
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7


Date of VPC Meeting January 9, 2023
Request From R-5 RI, P-1, and C-3 CMOD
Request To WU Code T5:5 and WU Code T5:5 CMOD
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Southeast corner of 9th Avenue and Fillmore Street
VPC Recommendation Continuance to February 13, 2023
VPC Vote 12-3-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Seventeen members of the public spoke on this item, 10 in favor and seven in
opposition.

Committee Member Christopher Colyer recused himself for this item, bringing quorum
to 15 members.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the subject site and surrounding area,
the proposed zoning, and the proposed development. Mr. Grande described the
background of policies affecting the area, the staff findings, and staff recommendation
of approval subject to stipulations.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Shane Essert, representing the applicant with Trumont Group Arizona, introduced
himself and provided an overview of the proposal, discussing the history of the
company and their involvement with the site, the project location, the existing condition
of the site leading to a desire to redevelop, and the proposed development. Mr. Essert
further described the outreach and citizen participation for the project, leading to the
evolution of the design through three stages.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Rachel Frazier Johnson noted that some of the opposition was concerned about
parking and asked the applicant for clarification on the proposed parking. Mr. Essert


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

Page 418
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7
January 9, 2023
Page 2


replied with the parking numbers, noting that it meets code.

Cyndy Gaughan asked if Trumont Group would be involved in the development of the
new church. Mr. Essert replied that they would not.

Darlene Martinez asked about bike parking on the site and asked how the
development team is defining attainable housing. Mr. Essert replied that bike parking
is included and that the proposed housing is targeting people in the income range of
50,000 dollars to 80,000 dollars annual income without using any affordable housing
financing mechanism.

Vice Chair O’Grady asked about ground floor activation with the carriage units and
about the anticipated rents for each type of unit. Mr. Essert provided the rent
breakdown by unit size and noted that commercial spaces will be included on the
ground floor of the carriage units, intended to be leasable as art studios.

Zach Burns asked about the involvement of the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC). Mr. Essert replied that the applicant went to the HPC and there was not a
recommendation to preserve any portion of the site. Mr. Grande explained the process
for receiving a demolition permit for older buildings, including review by the HPC.

Jeff Sherman asked if other alternatives were considered, such as developing the
parcel across the street, and asked if some of the parking could have been put to a
different use. Mr. Essert stated that the team had discussed many options with the
church and that ultimately the proposed development provided the best option for the
church for this site.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Anthony Cox introduced himself as a pastor of the church living across the street from
the subject site and stated that he supported the project because it will enhance the
area and allow the church to continue its presence in the neighborhood. Mr. Cox noted
that the site has become a burden to the church because of blight and disrepair.

Mollie McCurdy introduced herself as a resident living near the subject site and stated
that the project does not incorporate community concerns, asking the Committee to
vote for a continuance.

Med Skeens introduced himself and spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that he
sees the benefit of the development and that preservation of the existing building would
be very expensive.

John Ramirez introduced himself and spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that he
lives in the neighborhood and is a member of the church and that the existing buildings
are very old.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 419
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7
January 9, 2023
Page 3


Cheryl Fulford introduced herself and spoke in favor of the proposal, noting that she
would be in favor of something new at the site and that it would be very expensive to fix
what is there now.

Ricky Aulds introduced himself and stated he was in favor of the proposal, stating that
he sees the blight every day and looks forward to the improvements on the site and
that it would be very expensive to keep the site as-is.

Skyler Cook introduced himself and spoke in favor of the proposal, noting that the
church cannot afford to maintain the existing buildings on site.

Jack Marks introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
although the church was not determined historic by the HPC, it is still significant with
architecture related to a building in Encanto Park. Mr. Marks stated that the church
could be blended into the design of the existing building and that he is concerned that
the project doesn’t integrate with the neighborhood.

Ashley Harder introduced herself as the Interim Executive Director of Preserve
Phoenix and spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Harder stated that the
determination made by the HPC is related to eligibility for the Phoenix Historic Register
and does not preclude a project from incorporating elements of the existing building
and asked the Committee to vote for a continuance.

Roger Brevoort introduced himself as a board member of Preserve Phoenix and
spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Brevoort stated that there are people within the
preservation community who do not agree with the determination that the existing
building is not eligible, adding that it is a significant building with unique features and
the applicant’s proposed design is not adequate, as he believes a portion of the
existing building should be retained.

Margarete Moffett introduced herself and spoke in favor of the proposal, noting that
she lives on the property and sees blight that she believes is a safety issue if the
building is maintained.

Beatrice Moore introduced herself as the Director of Grand Avenue Arts and
Preservation and spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Moore stated that the church
is responsible for keeping the building in good repair and the applicant’s proposal for 4
stories is too tall and doesn’t include enough activation of the ground floor, adding that
the opposition came to the table to negotiate with the developer to improve the project
and incorporate preservation of a portion of the existing building. She stated she does
not support the rezoning because the developer has not agreed to any preservation.

DeeDee Garcia Blase provided additional background information on the Grand
Avenue Members Association.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 420
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7
January 9, 2023
Page 4


Ellie Lambert introduced herself and spoke in favor of the proposal, noting that it will
enable the church to serve more people.

Benjamin Hall introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the opposition’s request is not to restore the building, simply to preserve it. Mr. Hall
stated that he did not agree with the WU Code zoning and would rather see the
setbacks of the existing R-5 district.

Dillon Moffett introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that he
has concerns with the existing building, as there are active leaks.

Mark Daus introduced himself as a nearby business owner and spoke in favor of the
proposal, stating that it will be a beautiful project and will bring in new residents to the
area while also benefiting the church.

APPLICANT RESPONSE
Shane Essert stated that the church is not eligible for historic preservation designation
and that retaining the portion under discussion poses design challenges, noting that the
building is not functional and has maintenance issues. Mr. Essert further stated that
there are tall buildings in the surrounding area and that the while original building was
designed by Mahoney, every wall has been changed since then, meaning the building
should not be considered a 1956 construction.

MOTION
Ash Uss made a motion to recommend a continuance to the February 13, 2023
meeting. Cyndy Gaughan seconded the motion.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Cyndy Gaughan stated that she believes concessions could be made to preserve
portions of the building.

Zach Burns agreed that some of the sanctuary and bell tower could be preserved.

Ash Uss stated that she would like to see if someone from the City could follow up to
meet the church’s needs.

Wayne Rainey stated that he supports the continuance to allow further discussion.

Dana Johnson agreed with the continuance and asked for clarification on the process.
Mr. Grande clarified that the item could be continued at the Planning Commission
meeting.

Vice Chair O’Grady questioned whether anything would change in the next month,
adding that there is pressure for housing in Phoenix and this income band is one that’s
needed.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 421
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7
January 9, 2023
Page 5



Nate Sonoskey stated that he believes the Committee has all the information it needs,
adding that it appears the development team is the right team for the project and that
he recognizes there is community support and a need for housing.

Rachel Frazier Johnson stated that she supports the continuance, noting that many
people care about this area and that she believes more discussion between the
developer and the community would be helpful. Ms. Johnson stated that she would
like to see elements of the existing building preserved and that this could be a
beneficial project for the area.

VOTE
12-3-1, motion to recommend a continuance to the February 13, 2023 meeting passes;
Committee Members Burns, Gaughan, Johnson, R. Johnson, Lockhart, Martinez,
Nervis, Rainey, Sherman, Starks, Uss, and Vargas in favor; Committee Members
Sonoskey, O’Grady, and Gonzales opposed; Committee Member Colyer recused.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 422
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7


Date of VPC Meeting February 13, 2023
Request From C-3 CMOD, P-1, and R-5 RI
Request To WU Code T5:5 CMOD, WU Code T5:5
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Southeast corner of 9th Avenue and Fillmore Street
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-6


VPC DISCUSSION:

Twenty-five members of the public registered in support of the item, 10 of which
wishing to speak. Thirty-nine members of the public registered in opposition, six of
which wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Sarah Stockham, staff, briefly noted the updated hearing dates for the case and did
not provide a full presentation since the item was heard last month.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Shane Essert, representing the applicant with Trumont Group, provided an overview of
the proposal. Mr. Essert identified the project location and noted the site is currently
zoned for high density apartments. Mr. Essert added the property operates as a church
and that there were structures on the site which had maintenance costs which were a
financial burden. Mr. Essert shared that the proceeds from the sale of the site would
allow the church to build a new campus in the neighborhood and would also bring
much needed housing. Mr. Essert concluded that the project received 110 letters of
support in the Triangle Neighborhood with 16 properties that directly neighbor this site.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Cyndy Gaughan commented about the controlled joint cracks under the structural
study, stating those are intentionally placed on the property.




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

Page 423
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7


Eva Olivas asked for clarification that the property was already zoned for the proposed
use, asked if it was going to get built one way or the other, and commented that the
report did not say the structure is going to fall down. Mr. Essert replied that he was just
reporting the findings of the structural engineer.

Jeff Sherman said from a sustainability standpoint the building is not designated as
historic and the applicant has a demolition permit, but that it was a waste of resources
to demolish the church and rebuild one across the street and questioned if there would
be stipulations on how the proposed church project across the street would be
developed in the future. Mr. Essert stated the church wants to sell the entire site to
fulfill their mission across the street, which will include a sanctuary and office space.
Mr. Sherman asked what the zoning was on the property across the street. Ms.
Stockham, staff, shared that churches are generally allowed in residential districts and
are sometimes subject to conditions or use permits.

Nate Sonoskey asked if the church could be demolished today, and if the site was
already zoned for high-density housing. Mr. Essert said yes, the church could be
demolished as they went through the 30-day demolition hold process and have a
demolition permit, and the Historic Preservation Commission deemed it not eligible for
designation.

Edward Vargas shared concern that there had been several residents living on site
and asked if it is unsafe and dangerous. Mr. Essert replied it was a legitimate concern
but a better question for the church to answer, whose representatives are registered to
speak.

Darlene Martinez asked if the applicant was willing to preserve the bell tower existing
on site. Mr. Essert said yes, they are committed to saving the bell tower and it would
remain in place as part of the apartment building.

Rachel Frazier Johnson shared she attended the meeting at the church and
appreciated the opportunity to attend.

Zach Burns asked for clarification regarding the proposal to build a new sanctuary and
office across the street, commented that the lot across the street is much smaller and
asked if they had a feasibility study. Mr. Essert said they had a feasibility study.

Vice Chair Ian O’Grady inquired about the possible remedy for historic preservation
and funding availability to keep the church in its original location. Mr. Essert stated the
church owns the land and needs the funding to build a new, safer church that includes
office space and a sanctuary.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Robert Graham introduced himself as a former Central City VPC member and Chair,
and as President of Grand Avenue Members Association (GAMA). Mr. Graham stated
his opposition to the proposal and that the site is a landmark for the Triangle
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 424
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7


Neighborhood. Mr. Graham added that he believed it was important to preserve the
sanctuary, it is a reasonable request, and that while he was thankful for the
continuance there was no discussion or back and forth with the applicant. Mr. Graham
added that he provided the developer with a potential plan to preserve the sanctuary
and maintain the required parking spaces and units. Mr. Graham concluded that if the
building was demolished, they should construct a quality building with modern
architecture rather than a project that is built to look like the historic church and
concluded that the developer is not a creative place maker and does not think outside
the box and that many neighborhood groups were united in opposition to this proposal.

Cheryl Fulford said she was in support and that the church would go under if it did not
get rezoned. Ms. Fulford invited people to come to the church and she would show how
the church facilities were not sustainable, sharing that the site only has one
groundskeeper. Ms. Fulford concluded by reiterating her support.

Anthony Cox introduced himself as one of the pastors of the church and stated that he
was a part of the public outreach, and he’s thankful for the overwhelming support and
for the hard work of Mr. Essert. Mr. Cox stated the church wants to remain a part of the
community and move across the street to the site they own, and the church needs
major improvements with no funding availability.

Beatrice Moore introduced herself as Director of the Grand Avenue Arts and
Preservation (GAP) group and a property owner in the area, and that when the church
came into the area eight years ago, there was a conversation about affordable housing
and that this proposal has no affordable housing. Ms. Moore added that the developer
did not allow a meeting to explore solutions and to find common ground, this proposal
sets a troubling precent and that she felt the lack of affordable housing units was
notable and unacceptable. Ms. Moore added that she would like to see the bell tower,
sanctuary, and colonnades be preserved as she felt they were character defining and
asked that the request be denied so they could continue working on a solution.

Ryan Phillips introduced himself and his family who live across the street from the
subject site. Mr. Phillips said he signed the petition but is speaking in support, and that
they feel the developer has listened to their concerns and has reached out many times.

Mark Daus introduced himself as the neighbor directly south on Taylor Street. Mr.
Daus shared that as a good neighbor he supports the proposal, it looks nice, and that
everyone has the right to make decisions in favor of their business.

Med Skeens said he was in support of the developer who he believed was a very good
listener, noted the support letters were in Spanish and English, the proposal preserves
the bell tower and that they need to build a new facility across the street that can serve
not only the church but the ministry offices.

Ashley Harder with Preserve Phoenix, a preservation advocacy organization,
introduced herself and shared that they want to be supportive of the church and its
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 425
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7


transition, they do not oppose housing or density, and the primary requests are to
preserve the bell tower, sanctuary, and colonnade. Ms. Harder added a demotion
permit does not determine what is or is not of value to the community, it is just saying if
the site is eligible for historic designation or not. Ms. Harder added that if the owner
was willing to preserve the property, they could be eligible to receive grant funding,
more work should be done to consider preservation, and that she did not support the
current plan. Ms. Harder requested the committee dig in to saving the building, and
that they would like to get to a place where they can support the plan with adequate
stipulations to address their concerns.

Ricky Aulds shared he was one of the pastors of the church and was thankful for all
the neighbors, the comments, and support the church and proposal has received. Mr.
Aulds shared he and his wife live on site, and only one pastor gets paid currently due to
the church’s financial situation, and that it was time for something to be done since they
had a developer willing to listen.

Skyler Cook mentioned that most developers would have closed and moved forward
with demolishing the site since it is not eligible for historic designation, that it is a
beautiful building but not feasible to maintain and noted that the church had a vision for
growth and development of the community, and they wanted help to create a new
landmark at the corner.

Gail Skeens introduced herself as a member of the church who helps with the church’s
financial administration, who has lived and worked downtown for 25 years. Ms. Skeens
shared that the applicant has gone above and beyond, and that the church spends a
large portion of their budget on repairs, but they have a small congregation and limited
funds. Ms. Skeens added that it would be a huge blessing if they did not have to worry
about the needs of the building such as plumbing, leaking roofs, and gas leaks daily
and that a new church building would provide wrap around services and would be more
efficient.

Dillon Moffett stated he has lived in the community for several years and was the
music leader at the church. Mr. Moffett shared that many of the issues with the church
building have been inherited, they have done the best they can in serving and giving
back, and that he liked the proposal to preserve the bell tower.

Margarete Moffett said she lived on the property with her husband and that they want
to be good neighbors and serve the community. Ms. Moffett shared that she felt the
new proposal was honoring and beautiful and she is excited for the project to move
forward and continue being part of this neighborhood.

Benjamin Hall said he has lived in the neighborhood for many years and that the
community just started to scratch the surface on the impacts of the WU Code. Mr. Hall
reiterated the request to preserve the bell tower, sanctuary, and colonnade. Mr. Hall
added that the community has mixed feelings of what the zoning would provide. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 426
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7


Hall said the project would act more like a gated community and he wanted to make
sure the developer would have a long-term interest in the community.

Mollie McCurdy shared that the applicant must have nefarious reasons for requesting
to rezone the site if he already has a demolition permit and exiting zoning that allows
the use. Ms. McCurdy shared that they already demolished a single-story dwelling to
make way for a parking lot, asked that the committee oppose the request and as the
rezone does not make sense, and to see what the developer can build by-right.

APPLICANT RESPONSE
Shane Essert replied that it was sad that it was stated he was up to nefarious activity
in the rezoning case. Mr. Essert concluded that there was a lot of heartfelt testimony,
and it was wonderful to work with everyone since 2020.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Nate Sonoskey stated that he appreciated the applicant and the public comments,
shared that he made a list of pros and cons and shared that if the committee supports
the proposal the applicant will demolish the site and build a new building that we have
seen, and if they oppose the proposal the applicant can still demolish the site and it will
be a vacant lot and they do not know who the developer will be. Mr. Sonoskey added if
they support the project there will be 126 new apartments, if they oppose the project
the site will remain as is which the church does not want, if they support the project the
church will remain solvent and if we oppose, the church could go bankrupt, and they
have heard mixed comments regarding support, opposition, and sharing that the
developer should just demolish the building.

Darlene Martinez shared she also had a pros and cons list and indicated she visited
the church and saw the demo of a building nearby, and that it is the church’s property,
and this is what they want.

Vice Chair O’Grady shared the proximity of the support, the liability for the church to
maintain the property, the housing crisis and that this will provide missing-middle
housing at around 80%-100% AMI made this a compelling project.

Darlene Martinez added that she liked the proposal to keep the bell tower, and the
design with the arches and colonnades.

Eva Olivas commented that the rent of $1,400 a month might be acceptable to some
but people who currently live at the church cannot afford that, there is no commitment
to keep the rents at that affordable rate, it is the church’s property, and this is what they
want, the Downtown RDA should incorporate neighborhood vision so that the public
feels that they are being heard and committees can act on recommendations that
support community vision, and that she was happy to hear about preserving the
belltower.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 427
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-61-22-7


Patrick Panetta said that he tries to stick with what the request focuses on, it is not a
design review or historic preservation case, and the proposal is consistent with the
General Plan and TOD Plan and has staff’s recommendation of approval.

Chair Nick Gonzales said there is a need for housing in addition to preserving history
and this project would help solve the need for housing and help with the housing crisis.

Cyndy Gaughan stated she liked that more housing would be provided, the historic
structure is important, and she looked forward to projects including a more affordable
component.

Rachel Frazier Johnson shared that it was a tough decision, and she wishes there
was better dialog between the applicant and the neighbors, and that while she will be
voting know she wanted to see the church to do well and continue to serve the
community.

Darlene Martinez shared that she also wished there was more dialog and interaction
with the applicant and opposition, and she liked that this was bringing more housing to
this area but wishes it would be more affordable.

Ali Nervis stated his concern that the church did not incorporate affordable housing
into the plan, and will be voting no.

Nate Sonoskey said this was not the end of the road and encouraged both sides to
continue the dialogue.

Janey Pearl Starks shared that she has been voting no on projects that do not include
affordable and work-force housing, so she will be voting no.

Edward Vargas shared that he will also be voting no, and that he would have liked to
see language about affordable housing.

MOTION
Chair Nick Gonzalez made a motion to recommend approval of Z-61-22-7 per the staff
recommendation. Darlene Martinez seconded the motion.

VOTE
8-6, motion to recommend approval of Z-61-22-7 per the staff recommendation passes
with Committee Members Gaughan, Lockhart, Martinez, Panetta, Sherman, Sonoskey,
O’Grady and Gonzales in favor; and Committee Members Burns, R. Johnson, Nervis,
Olivas, Starks, and Vargas opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

No comment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 428
ATTACHMENT D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 2, 2023

ITEM NO: 14
DISTRICT NO.: 7
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-61-22-7
Location: Southeast corner of 9th Avenue and Fillmore Street
From: C-3 CMOD, P-1, and R-5 RI
To: WU Code T5:5 CMOD and WU Code T5:5
Acreage: 3.24
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Applicant: Trumont Group Arizona, LLC
Owner: Mercy Hill Development, LLC
Representative: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Central City 1/9/2023 Continued to February 13, 2023. Vote: 12-3-1.
Central City 2/13/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 8-6.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Central City Village Planning
Committee recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-61-22-7, per the Central
City Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Mangum
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-1-1 (Perez) (Howard conflict)
Absent: Simon
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and with
the Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework vision for this area.

2. The proposal provides a new multifamily housing option to contribute to the mix of
housing types in the area and will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.

3. As stipulated, the proposal will enhance connectivity in the immediate vicinity by
providing pedestrian, bicycle, and shade amenities consistent with the TOD Strategic
Policy Framework and other policy plans.




Page 429
Stipulations:

1. A ground floor brick arcade with arches along Fillmore Street and tower features along
Fillmore and Taylor streets shall be provided, as depicted on the building elevations
date stamped December 15, 2022, and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. A minimum of one common entry shall be provided for each street frontage, except for
buildings where every unit has private entry directly to the street, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

3. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at a
minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces near entrances
of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station
shall include but not limited to: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

4. The developer shall maintain the existing width of the historic landscape area within
the right-of-way along 9th Avenue and Taylor Street and replenish the landscaping per
the landscape standards of Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

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

5. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a
minimum 8-foot-wide landscape area between the back of curb and sidewalk along
Fillmore Street with landscaping consistent with the landscape standards of Section
1309 of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

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

6. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study has been reviewed and
approved by the city.

7. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping,

Page 430
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

8. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of 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.

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

10. Prior to 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) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 431
ATTACHMENT E


CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ Z-61-22-7 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southeast corner of opposition x applicant
9th Avenue and
Fillmore Street



APPEALED FROM: PC 03/02/2023 1301 Grand Avenue, #8
Phoenix, AZ 85007

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 04/05/2023 Beatrice Moore
HEARING 602-391-4016
muppetsrealmom@gmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Incorrect info given by developer; Incomplete info given by HP staff.



RECEIVED BY: Camryn Thompson RECEIVED ON: 03/06/2023

Alan Stephenson Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes Village Planner
Racelle Escolar GIS
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
Diana Hernandez Adam Stranieri (for PHO Appeals)
David Urbinato
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo




Page 432
Page 433
ATTACHMENT F




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
Dear Central City Village Planning Committee Members,

My name is Anthony Cox and I am a pastor at Mercy Hill Church, a diverse faith community
that our family has joyfully served since 2014. Our family lives on 9th Ave and Fillmore in
the Triangle Neighborhood, just across the street from the proposed project. I am writing to
express my support of Z-61-22-7.

I adore our community and have dedicated my life to seek the welfare of our city. Our
Church’s members are as diverse as our bus stop and our way of life is to “welcome the
disconnected to an authentic community.” Our Church’s commitment over the past 80 years
has been to demonstrate God’s love to those that society has too often overlooked and
marginalized through provision of food, affordable housing, job training, lay counseling,
education, and community gatherings. However, after ongoing internal and recent external
assessments, our Church family confirmed their desire to sell a portion of the property and
leverage the money to rebuild and reestablish a ministry alongside our community that
fosters trust, inclusivity, innovation, excellence, and sustainability.

I recognize that our footprint is a stewardship in our community that has been entrusted
with a sacred responsibility to leverage for the glory of God and the good of our city. We
consider ourselves land rich and cash poor. Given our current reality, the existing buildings,
which have served our church’s mission and vision for many years, has now become a
hindrance to our ministry. Blight, dark inactive areas, and dilapidated buildings have
fostered a sense of danger among residents in our senior adult housing, and has invited
vagrancy and crime to our neighborhood. Today, our buildings are old and beyond their
functional use, and given years of differed maintenance, the costs have become unbearable.
This project allows us to use the money from the land to strengthen our Church and further
our Church’s mission. This project will enable us to:
• Stay planted in DTPHX as a kingdom presence for the glory of God and the
good of our neighbors.
• Contribute to the beautification of the Triangle neighborhood and reducing
blight around our city block.
• Leverage financial resources to further our mission with functional usage
• Provide space for collaboration with public, private, and social sectors for
greater community engagement and compassion ministries.

I believe this project helps our church accomplish this end. This project represents a
meaningful investment in the area, which will positively impact the character and quality of
the neighborhood. For this reason, I support Z-61-22-7 and I hope you will too.

With Gratitude,




Anthony Cox



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
Dear Central City Village Planning Committee Members,

My name is Paul Johnson. I am writing to express my support for Z-61-22-7, a high quality
multifamily project located at the SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. As a disclosure I am a partner
with the church on the project.

As a long time supporter of downtown Phoenix, this project helps us extend the benefits that
have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to West of 7th Ave. As
high quality, high density project west of 7th Ave will help bring much more investment dollars
to a side of the street that has had scattered development, but nothing that reaches the quality
of project being proposed.

Along with my partners, the church, are a supporter of improving the West of 7th ave, because
we intend to stay a part of this area. We believe that improving this side of the street, will
benefit all the residences and business that exist there.

In addition to this, the requested zoning is just good land use. Much of the existing proposed
property is already zoned R-5, so it could already go multifamily. However, by rezoning to WU
Code, ti allows staff and the developer the flexibility necessary to create a true urban project,
rather than trying to design around what the existing site would allow, which would result in a
less cohesive project. City staff, has recommended approval, I believe because it is next to a
major arterial, and they know that if this site is developed hodgepodge the area will suffer.
They recommended it as having a strong basis for multifamily at this location.

The units are not subsidized housing that is often misunderstood as the only version of
affordable housing. This is market rent housing, that is affordable for middle class families and
individuals who are finding it more difficult to find housing in our existing market. The product
is designed to be more affordable to the average family or young professional.

Last, the existing buildings are old and are way beyond the structural lifespan of the buildings.
They have no historic value, and currently, unless we can make a change, they create a
significant financial burden on the church. This project allows the church to stay in the area
providing their services, and benefits them and the neighborhood with a quality project.

For these reasons, I strongly support Project Z-61-22-7. I hope you will, too.

Sincerely,


Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson




Page 463
Dear Central City Village Planning Committee Members,

My name is Ricky Aulds and I am one of the pastors at Mercy Hill Church. I have had
the privilege to serve our community since moving here in 2014 and then getting
married and having my bridejoin me in 2018. At the present my wife and I live here in
one of the church apartments at 9th Ave and Fillmore in the Triangle Neighborhood, on
the location of the proposed project. I am writing to express my support of Z-61 -22-7.

My wife and I have been called to this community, and along with our church team and
church family, are dedicated to seeking the welfare of our city. This is further evidenced
by the non-profit Mercy Hill Church created called Mercy Ministries to specifically help
care for the most vulnerable of our community, For more than 80 years, our church has
demonstrated God's love to our community through ministries of mercy like the
provision of food, affordable housing, outreach to those battling substance addictions,
counseling, and collaboration with community partners.

We see people as the city's and our church's greatest asset. We seek to prioritize the
needs of people and serving them. Our large property with dilapidating buildings are
increasingly hindering and taking the top priority of our time and energy.

After extensive and thorough assessments, our church family confirmed the desire and
need to sell a portion of the property and reinvest those monies to rebuild on another
location of our footprint and reestablish a on-going vibrant ministry.

Z-61 -22-7 allows us to use the money from the land to strengthen our church and
further our church's mission. Specifically, this project will enable us to remain in
downtown Phoenix for the glory of Good and good of our neighbors; contribute to the
beautification of the Triangle neighborhood; utilize financial resources to further our
mission with functional usage to benefit the church and community; and provide space
to-collaborate with public, private, and social sectors to increasingly help care for our
city through ministries of mercy and compassion.

This project represents a meaningful investment in the area, which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood. For this reason, I support Z-61 -22-7 and I
hope you will too.

T#yz=#t,On,
Ricky Aulds




Page 464
Page 465
Page 466
Page 467
Page 468
Page 469
Page 470
Page 471
Page 472
January 8, 2023


Central City Village Planning Committee
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003



RE: Z-61-22-7 – Trumont Rezoning Request



Members of the Committee:

The Urban Phoenix Project is writing in regards the rezoning request (Z-61-22-7) from Trumont Group
for 745 W. Fillmore Street and its surrounding parcels, related to their proposed multi-family housing
development on the site of the current Mercy Hill Church and associated structures.

Adding housing capacity and density in the areas within and around Downtown is critical considering the
overall shortage of housing, and it is well known that the collective speed at which housing is being
constructed in the city is insufficient. In fact, new residential density in the city core supports objectives
related to sustainability and maximizing the return on taxpayer funded infrastructure investment and
maintenance. We believe this rezoning permits a better class of development than alternatives under
these parcel’s existing zoning. Further, it permits development that is decidedly more urban in nature
than the current use: improved ground floor access, reduced setbacks, increases to density, and an
increase in residents with walkable access to the surrounding neighborhood.

Understanding that the existing Mercy Hill structure is an attractive element within this neighborhood,
we have been pleased to see the developer make several substantial revisions to the site plan and
exterior design to ensure that the new development also provides an attractive and meaningfully
differentiated presence. We would advocate for further increases in density in this development and a
reduction in both parking to bedroom ratio and surface parking area. However, we do not consider
these on their own sufficient cause to block the critical development of additional housing capacity.

We are in favor of this rezoning request and look forward to seeing this project complete and fully
occupied.

Sincerely,

Cory Kincaid
Urban Phoenix Project


cc:
Shane Essert, Trumont Group
Noel Griemsmann, Snell & Wilmer




Page 473
Statement ofSu
pp ort
Z-61-22-7


Dea r Central City Vi
llage,


My nam_e is .Ad r i a n/'.l Zopo.+Q. and Ilive at Coe inCl
am wmmg to state
my support for Z-61-2 Ada. me)'; I
2-7, high quality multifamily
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillm project located at the
ore. I support this proj
ect for a number of reasons:

• This project rep
resents a meaningful investment in the
area which wi11 positively impact
the character and quality of
the neighborhood
• This is an urban site
near a major arterial that is a good
candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide
much needed housing units during a
housing shortage
• The sale of this site wilI help
to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill
Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional-arc
hitecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more
reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the
high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. 1hose
buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. 1hey invite
vagrancy and
crime . We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constr
ucted, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites
activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside
and outside of the Mercy
HiII congregation. Within the Mercy HiII congregation alone there
are over 100 members
that support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfuUy request that you support Z-61-2
2-7.

Thanky��




Page 474
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,

My name isA,\j
,, . � s J\\'\J\Jl.Y\JlL and! live at
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & FiUmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of rhe neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project wiU provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy HiU Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project fearures professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and arc a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there arc over 100 members
chat support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 475
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Vill�e.


My name is f\\m01dwYlct J and I live at B�S"O \JJ \}\., ,,,, fu,( P�A. Zy
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-1, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave 6r Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:


• This project represents a meaningful invesrment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of rhis site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer ro see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity co chc area.
• There is strong community support for this project, borh inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there arc over 100 members
char support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.


Thank you,




Page 476
Statement of Support
Z-61-zi.-7




k
Dear Central Ci:�2


My name is {,4 and I live at .S,;).. (�, �f� /4ve,_. . I
am writing to stare my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support rhis project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban sire near a major arterial rhar is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this sire wiU help ro support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture char enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared ro some of the high rises that are being built ro
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer co see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites acriviry to the area.
• There is strong community support for rhis project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 477
Statement ofSupport
2·61·22·7



Dear Cemra! C.:y Village.

My name is C cdt \t:<,, \IN' and! live a: ___..:.P_h'-')"---'-
/...:.1_"1--
____ . I
am writing to ,race my suppon for Z-61-u-,, high qualicy mult,familr pro1ec: located .t: the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support thi< project for .t number of reasons:

• 1his project re;>re,ems a meaningful invesrmen: in :he area which y,:II posim:ely impac:
:he ch.tracte1 and quahcy of the ne1gh!iorhood
• This is an urban site near a major arcerial chat is a good candidate for mulcifam1ly
• 1his project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shonai:e
• The sale of this s::e will help to su;>port the ministry of :he :\lercy H II Church. which
does great work in our communities
• The pro1ect features professional architecture that enhances the ae,thetics of the area
• The proiect features sm.iller unit< .tr a more reasonable price point, which allows access
10 a gre.1:er number of families compued to some of the high rises that are being built to

the east
• Without chis proiect, the existing buildings Y.ill remain. Those bu.!dings are old, hive
not been maintained and are a b!igh: :o :he neighborhood. '!hey invite vagrancy and
crime. We in che neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invite, activny to the ;i.rea.
• !here is srrong community support for this proje.:t, both inside and outside of the \lercy
H.11 congrega:ion Within :he Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

for these rusor.s, I respec:full>· reques: tliar you support Z-61-22.-7.

Thank you,




X
J.J r,0Af'l ---------




Page 478
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,


My name is C,!O,
P)YA, CCO'( and I live at l) C1RJ:\ r'f), f\''.k: . I
am writing co state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban sire near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this sire will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics ofthe area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Wirhour this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
nor been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer ro sec a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside ofrhe Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 479
Statement of Support
Z-61-1,2-7




Dear Central City Village,

My name 1s '/ µ.yl,vt , /2 './r« and I live at (, ///()/4 tll 'l-;(/CU . I
;am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality mulufamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave 6t FiUmore. I support this pro1ect for a number of re;a,or:s,

• Thi> project represen:s a meaningful invesrmen: m the area which will positively impact
:he character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a ma1or arterial chat 1s a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing umts during ,1 housing short;age
• The sale of c�is s:re will he:p to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
d�s gre;ar work in our communities
• The project features professional archttecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller um:s ;it a more reasonable price poin:, which allows ;acce<<
to ;a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the not been maintained, and are ,1 blight :o the neighborhood. They 1m·1te vagrancy and
crime. We m the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residenrial project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of che Mercy
Hill congregauon. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
chat support this projea

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-n-7.

Thank you,




Page 480
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,
g
j
My name is_..,(::-='(A={_i_......,....._ _u-1'-X--- ///IV Yd f(W"'\v{ s+,_ fh���:5
· __ and r live at
am writing to state my support for Z-61•2Z·7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9ch Ave & Fillmore. l support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will posirively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial thac is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the miniscry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does greac work in 011r comm11nities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aeschetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing b11ildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property val11es and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for chis project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, l respectfolly request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 481
Estimados Central City Village,

Mi nombre es \:),?rt,
I I °"''-"'e... s + .Escribo para indicar mi apoyo para Z-61-22-7, el proyecto
multi-familiar de alta calidad situado en el SEC de 9th Ave & Fillmore. Yo apoyo este
proyecto por las siguiemes razones:

• Este Proyecto reprcsenta una inversion valiosa en el area que impactara
positivamente el caracter y calidad del vecindario.

• Este es un sitio urbano cerca de arteria principal que es un buen candidato para
multi-familiar.

• Este proyecto proveera unidades de viviendas necesarias durante escasez de
vivienda.

• La venta de este sitio ayudara apoyar el ministerio de la Iglesia Mercy Hill, que
hace un gran trabajo en nuestras comunidades.

• El proyecto presenta arquitectura profesional que mejora la estetica del area.

• El proyecto presenta unidades pequefias a un precio mas razonable. que permitira
acceso a un gran numero de familias comparado a otros rascacielos quc estan
siendo construidos hacia el este.

• Sin este proyecto, los edificios existentes permanceran. Esos edificios estan viejos,
no han sido mantenidos. y son de engendro para el vecindario. Invitan vagabundeo
y delincuencia. Nosotros en el vecindario prefeririamos ver una nueva
construcci6n, proyecto de residencial de alta calidad que clcvc el valor de
propiedad y que invite movimiento al area.

• Tlay un fucrte apoyo comunitario para cstc proyecto, ambos dentro y fucra de la
congregaci6n de Mercy Hill. Deniro de la congregaci6n de Mercy Hill hay mas de
JOO miembros que apoyan este proyecto.



Por estas razoncs, respetuosamente solicito que usted apoye Z-61-22-7.

Gracias,
X. .D, �"z., Qe;;i c..."2..




Page 482
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,

? ll-/ 5 W F,'f"{orl. J:1
My name is (,.-4&,-; ozJ G .•,,,, and I live at

am writing to st ate my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I suppor t this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for mul tifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing short age
• The s ale ofthis site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great workin our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetic s of the area
• The projec t features sm a ller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being buil t to

the east
• Wi thom this project, the exis ting buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invi te vagrancy a nd
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high

quality residential project t hat elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community suppor t for this project, bo th inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-1.

lhankyou,




Page 483
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,

My name is 0;rJ,egn /(ru; IJJ(; and I live ar �.olt,:¼ . I
am writing co srace my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing unirs during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances rhe aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
co a greater number offamilies compared ro some of the high rises that are being built co
the ease
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
nor been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer ro see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request chat you support Z-61-22-1.

Thank you,




Page 484
gt
Estimados Central City Village,

Mi nombre es I lo 1.,,,1,.,L/ v, y resido en 1 Y t; U)
'[t(LMC?{fl; 5:T . Escribpara indicar mi apoyo para Z-61-22-7. el proyecto
multi-familiar de alta calidad sin,ado en cl SEC de 9th Ave & Fillmore. Yo apoyo este
proyecto por las siguientes nu.ones:

• Este Proyecto representa una inversion valiosa en el area que impactara
positivarnente el caracter y calidad dcl vecindario.
• Este es un sitio urbano cerca de arteria principal quc cs un bucn candidato para
multi-familiar.

• Este proyecio proveera unidadcs de viviendas necesarias durante escasez de
vivienda.

• La vcnta de este sitio ayudara apoyar el ministerio de la Iglesia Mercy Hill. que
hace un gran lrabajo en nuestras comunidades.

• El proyecto presenta arquitectura profesional que mejora la estetica del area.

• El proyecto presenta unidades pcquenas a un precio mas razonable. que permitira
acceso a un gran numero de familias comparado a otros rascacielos que estan
siendo construidos hacia el este.

• Sin este proyecto, los cdificios existemes permanceran. F,sos edi ficios estan viejos,
no han sido mantenidos, y son de engendro para el vecindario. lnvitan vagabundeo
y delincuencia. Nosotros en el vccindario prefeririamos ver una nueva
construcci6n, proyccto de residencial de alta calidad que eleve el valor de
propiedad y que invite movimiento al area.

• Hay un Fuerte apoyo comunitario para cstc proyecto. ambos demro y fuera de la
congregaci6n de Mercy Hill. Dcntro de la congregaci6n de Mercy Hill hay mas de
100 miembros que apoyan cstc proyccto.




"1
Por estas razones. respetuosamente solicito que usted apoye Z-61-22-7.

Grado,, ) l,,c, � }L '''.(,

Page 485
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,


My name is Jv5 '-fh C-1>./l,bsb St
and I live at�( «.! fi /Ji-,,,, 4J,1 132. I
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality mulcifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban sire neat a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 486
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7

Dear Central City Village,

My name is Josh Lambert and I live in downtown Phoenix. I am writing to state my support
for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I
support this project for a number of reasons:

- This project represents a meaningful investment in the area, which will positively impact the
character and quality of the neighborhood
- This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
- This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
- The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which does
great work in our communities
- The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
- The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access to a
greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to the east
- Without this project, the existing buildings will remain, Those buildings are old, have not
been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and crime. We
in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high quality residential
project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
- There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone, there are over [100] members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thanks,



Josh Lambert




Page 487
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,

My name is ,j cJ 1(1 f2.wnoc and I live at P\12( £rz. . I
am writing to state my support for Z-61-2.2.-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing unirs during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help co support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built ro
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residenrial project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is srrong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-2.2-7.

Thank you,




Page 488
Statement of Support
Z-61-2.2.-7



Dear Central City Village,

-<- Ctt / / �
My name is » 1J.,( \ I h Ii >-- and I live at /ti� lJ +' 11 ""-Ore_ SI �'I:J l . l
am writing to state my support for Z•61•22·7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & fiUmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight co the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

for these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 489
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7


Dea r Cenrral City Village,


• �,I _•__ and I live at-'''--'--'-''-£.=....______. I
My name is ""''---·-'�-'-·,..,__,_,'-H'-_,_f�,...'-'
am writing to sc are my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily projecr loc ated ar the

SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I suppor t this projecr for a number of reasons:

• 1his project represcnrs a meaningful invescmenr in the area which will posi tively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood

• This is an urban site near a major arcerial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this sire will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does grcar work in our communities
• The project fearures professional archirecrure char enhances the aesrhetics of the area
• The project fearures smaller unirs at a more reasonable price poinr, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared ro some of the high rises rhat are being builr to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to rhe neighborhood. They invire vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly consrrucced, high
quality residential project rhar elevates property values and invites activity to che area.
• There is strong community support for chis project, both inside and outside of che Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone rhere are over 100 members
char support chis project.

For these reasons, I respec tfully request char you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 490
Statemeoc of Support
Z-61-2.2.-7



Dear Central City Village,

My name is icp.v\ t'\ k'0>1\Q$ and I live ar -\1:)X A:z . I
am writing ro state my support for Z-61-2.2.-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in rhe area which will posirively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban sire near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help ro support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller unirs at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises rhat are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
chat support this project.

for these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-1.

Thank you,




X
--

Page 491
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




My name is
' C and I live at Ntrf:tj fa.. . l
iry multifamily proj ect located at th e
am wmmg to tate my support for Z-61-22-7, high qual
ber of reasons:
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore . l support t his project for a num

a which will positively impact
• This project represents a meaningful investment in the are
the c haracter and quality of t he neig hborhood
idate for multifamily
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good cand
housing shortage
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a
y Hill Church, w hich
• The sale of chis site will help to support the ministry of the Merc
does great work in our communi ties
the aesthetics of the area
• The project fearures professional architecrure that enhances
t, which allows access
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price poin
the hig h rises chat are being built to
ro a greater number of families compared to some of
the east
buildings are old, have
• Without this projec t , the existing buildings will remain. Those
. They invite vagrancy and
not been maintained, and are a bligh t to the neighborhood
see a newly constructed, hig h
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer ro
s and invites activiry to the area.
qualiry residential project that elevates properry value
and outside of the Mercy
• There is srrong community support for this proj ect, both inside
alone there are over 100 members
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congre gation
th at support this project.


For these reasons, l respectfully request char you support Z-61-22-7.


Thank you,




Page 492
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,

�r8rtY-Ot1 QI
7 Lf")My n�me i/tf2{1,fl and I live at
am writing co scare my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at rhe
SEC of9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number ofreasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality ofthe neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale ofchis site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does grear work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some ofthe high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 493
Estimados Cemral City Village.
. �tt.!,\ _o,. 4��
M1 nombre es-----------------' res1 do en \ 01-,
. ,- \ OlvJ
Lo'-' c: C(<.\'\'l::' DI
f<, 1<)"&Ic. Az z'$3 YZ . Escribo para indicar mi apoyo para Z-61-22-7. el proyecto
multi-familiar de alta calidad situado en el SEC de 9th Ave & Fillmore. Yo apoyo este
proyecto por las siguientes razoncs:

• Este Proyecto representa una inversion valiosa en el area que impactara
positivamente el caracter y calidad del veeindario.

• Este es un sitio urbano cerca de arteria principal que es un buen candidato para
multi-familiar.

• Este proyecto proveera unidades de viviendas necesarias durante escasez de
vivienda.

• La venta de este sitio ayudara apoyar el ministcrio de la Iglesia Mercy I !ill. quc
hace un gran trabajo en nuestras comunidades.

• El proyecto presenta arquitectura profesional que mejora la cstetica del area.

• El proyecLO prcsenta unidades pequenas a un precio mas razonable. que permitira
acceso a un gran ntimero de familias comparado a olros rascacielos que estan
siendo construidos hacia el este.

• Sin este proyecto. los edificios existentes permanceran. Esos edifieios estan viejos.
no han sido mantenidos, y son de engenclro para el vecindario. lnvitan vagabundeo
y delincuencia. osotros en el vecindario prefeririamos ver una nueva
construcci6n, proyecto de residencial de alta calidad que elevc el valor de
propiedad y que invite movimiemo al area.

• Hay un fuertc apoyo comunitario para este proyecto. an1bos dentro y fuera de la
congregaci6n de Mercy Hi11. Dentro de la congregaci6n de Mercy Hill hay mas de
100 miembros quc apoyan este proyecto.



Por estas razones, respetuosamente solicito que ustecl apoye Z-61-22-7.

Gracias,

�r.ev'o \...lo6




Page 494
S1atement of Support
Z-61-21.-7



Dear �mnl City \�illage,


My name is -=l,._1/5_:...,H_·-�-/
1..:c t>?C
__t..-_e:_�__ and I live a1 ti{)C(k(J . I
,m wming to state my support for Z·6t• Z.2·7. high qw.lity multifamily project located at the
SEC of9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful invesrment in the are, which will posirively impact
the charac1er and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed hou�ing units dunng a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project fearures smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows ,ccess
to a greater number of families compared to some ofthe high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this proiect, the existing buildings \\nor been maintained and are a bhght to the neighborhood. Tuey invite vagrancy ,nd
crime We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
qualii.y residential project that elevates property values and mvi1es activity to 1he area.
• There is strong community support for this pro1ect, both inside and outside of the Mercy
HiU congregation. Within :he \iercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




�/I�/-/
Page 495
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7



Dear Central City Village,

My name is�{.. ..,__•.,__�=------- and I live at _·-----�.' �/__�_._._,_._,.___ . I
'""'"
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-1, high quality multifamily project located ar the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore, I support chis project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful invesrmenr in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing unirs during a housing sho rtage
• The sale of this sire wiU help to support the ministry ofche Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture char enhances the aesthetics of rhe area
• The project featu res smaller units ar a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared ro some of the high rises that are being built to
the ease
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood . They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project rhat elevates prope rty values and invites activity ro the area,
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation, Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22.-7,

Thank you,



-/
V I I




Page 496
Estimados Central City Village.

. 1 d,
resido en :i:£ I,., k 1•, , /
t'
1:. P Eseribo para indiear mi apoyo para Z-61-22-7, el proyecto
multi-familiar de alta calidad situado en el SEC de 9'h Ave & Fillmore. Yo apoyo cste
proyecto por las siguientes razones:

• Este Proyecto representa una inversion valiosa en el area que impactara
positivamente el caraeter y calidad del vecindario.

• Este cs un sitio urbano cerca de arteria principal que es un buen eandidato para
multi-familiar.

• Este proyccto proveera unidades de viviendas neeesarias durante escasez de
vivienda.

• La venta de este sitio ayudara apoyar el ministerio de la Iglesia Mercy Hill, que
hacc un gran trabajo en nuestras comunidades.

• El proyeclo presenta arquitectura profesional quc mejora la estetica de! area.

• El proyecto presenta unidades pequenas a un precio mas razonable. que permitira
aeceso a un gran numero de familias comparado a otros rascacielos que estan
siendo eonstruidos hacia el este.

• Sin cste proyecto, los edificios existentcs permanccran. Esos edificios estan viejos.
no han sido mantenidos, y son de engcndro para el vecindario. lnvitan vagabundco
y delincuencia. osotros en el vecindario prereririamos ver una nucva
construcci6n, proyecto de residencial de alta calidad quc eleve el valor de
propiedad y quc invite movimiento al area.

• Hay un fuerte apoyo comunitario para este proyecto. ambos dentro y fuera de la
congregaci6n de Mercy l lill. Dentro de la congregaci6n de Mercy llill hay mas de
I 00 miembros quc apoyan estc proyec10.



Por estas razones, respetuosamente solicito que ustcd apoye Z-61-22-7.

Gracias.




Page 497
Estimados Central City Village,

Mi no I Cl R -r,., a resido en ��/ l-u,WI �t/r,·
.A· Escribo para indicar mi apoyo para Z-61-22-7. el proyec10
multi-familiar de alta calidad siniado en el SEC de 9th Ave & Fillmore. Yo apoyo cste
proyecto por las siguientes razones:

• Esre Proyecto representa una inversion valiosa en el area que impactara
positivamente el caracier y calidad del vccindario.

• Este es un sitio urbano cerca de arteria principal que es un buen candidato para
multi-familiar.

• Este proyecto proveera unidades de viviendas necesarias durante escasez de
vivienda.

• La vcnta de cste sitio ayudara apoyar el ministerio de la Iglesia Mercy Hill, que
hace un gran trabajo en nuestras comunidades.

• El proyecto presenta arquitectura profesional quc mejora la estetica del area.

• El proyecto presenta unidades pequeiias a un precio mas razonable. que permitira
acceso a un gran numero de familias comparado a otros rascacielos que estan
siendo construidos hacia el este.

• Sin este proyecto, los edificios existentes permanccran. Esos cdificios estan viejos.
no han sido mantenidos, y son de engendro para el vccindario. Jnvitan vagabundeo
y delincuencia. osotros en el vecindario prefeririamos ver una nucva
construcci6n, proyecto de residcncial de alta calidad quc eleve cl valor de
propiedad y que invite movimiento al area.

• Hay un fuerte apoyo cornunitario para cste proyecto. ambos dcntro y fuera de la
congregaci6n de Mercy Hill. Dentro de la congregaci6n de Mercy Hill hay mas de
I 00 micmbros que apoyan este proyec10.



Por escas razones, respetuosamente solicito que ustcd apoye Z-61-22-7.

Gracias.




Page 498
I


Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7



Dear Central City Village,


My name is - i�/: I ' \I t,:i,/'l'-l(:"\
c,.,\-Vl) �
and I live at ?.ol w �Mr ,t,{J I £b . I
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.




/ ._ /yv-·-
Thank you,




.' I Page 499
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7



Dear Central City Village,

My name is �-Ji�� an�Ilive at �,/4 QsazlS'.r
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Cqurch, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
· • Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.


'Ihankyou,




Page 500
Statement of Support
Z-61-2.2.-7



Dear Central City Village,


My name is _..;.e_A
;;..._�_-y
__
£ \_\_':x.___ and I live '-"-�....:..J...-'-1!:""--"'-+f-• 1 U1 Jl(ll1
alH--rJ
am writing to state my support for Z•61•22·7, high quality multifamily project located at t � r4 (.
SEC of9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which a!Jows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Withour this project, the existing buildings wi!J remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in rhe neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and ourside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22.-7.

Thank you,




Page 501
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,

My nameis Re\oeciu �'-J d andlliveat Ph:s.A� .I
am writing to state my support for 2·6!·22·7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. r support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller unics at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
co a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises chat are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
nor been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residencial projecc chat elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request thac you support Z-61-22-?.




-2 J
Thank you,




X //-,--!-be!'f'�

,J,41-
--
/
---
--


Page 502
Statement of Support
Z-61-22.-7



Dear Central City Village,

My name is Qi'otC.\:0- and! live at
am writing to state my support for Z-61-2.2.-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site wiU help ro support rhe ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• 1he project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaUer units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, rhe existing buildings will remain. 1hose buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. 1hey invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that suppore this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-1.

Thank you,




Page 503
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7



Dear Central Ciry Village,

My name is k 1J (JJrl' and! live at
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high qualiry multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area whi c h will positively impact
the character and qualiry of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of t he Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetic s of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number offamilies compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
qualiry residential project that elevates property values and invites acriviry to the area.
• There is strong communiry support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




I




Page 504
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7


De ar Central City Village,


and! live a t Qh ,t Prs
;
. I
am writing tO state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily pr oject located at the

SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represent s a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This i s an urban site near a major arter ial chat is a good candidate for multifam i ly
• This project will provide much ne eded hous ing units duri ng a housing shortage
• The sale of this site w i ll help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
doe s great work in our communi ties
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The pr oject features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which all ows access
t0 a greater number of fam i lies compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
che east
• Without this project, the existi ng buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to che neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We i n the neighborhood would much prefe r to see a newly constructed, high
quality resi dential project that elevates property values and inv ites activity to che area.
• There is srrong community support for thi s project, both inside and outsi de of the Mercy
Hill congregat i on. Withi n the Mercy Hill congregati on alone there are over 100 members
that support thi s project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




�--
---- -----
Page 505
Statement ofSupport
Z-61-22-7



Dear Central City Village,

My na�e is Srl,v-v--& VtLU[ /Jc L-- and I live at �! 2, v/- � PJovJff/; I
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• 'iliis project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• 'iliis is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• 'iliis project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• 'ilie sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• 'ilie project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• 'ilie project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.


1hankyou,




Page 506
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7



Dear Central City Villag r
My name i �\c.-j \/4- � and!live at \d',�4 f:. 1/...�tt.D . I
� \\
am writing to state my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• lhis is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help ro support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The projecr features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises chat are being built to
the east
• Without rhis project, rhe existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
nor been maintained, and are a blight ro the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project char elevates property values and invites activity co the area.
• There is strong community support for chis project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-2,2.-7.

Thank you,
� --



Page 507
Statement of Support
Z-61-12-7



De.u Central City \·1\bge,
(e,u,,)�)
71:;. - 719 ,11�.:1 .,�«c. s:
, I J OW.1
;r
- •• _1•• ,
�\y nar,1e LS _-__ __• w
£Se!' "11
---- and f"ttt:,.r,V ..;....r_____.<.!.

a:u \TT:ling to state '.ll)' support for Z-61-22-7, high quality mulrifamily project locared ar the
SEC of9th A\·e & Fi!lmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:


• This proiecr represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality ofthe neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for mukifamily
• This ?toject will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale oftbis site will help to supporc the ministry ofrhe Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communiries
• 'Ihe project features professional architecture that enhances the aesrherics ofthe area
• The project features smaller u.aits at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
;o a greater number offamilies compared to some ofthe high rises that are being built co
the east
• \'lithou.t this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those bujldings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight ro the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. \Ve m the neighborhood wowd much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
qual 1 1y residential project that elevates property values ;md invires acdviry to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. \Vithin the Mercy H1II congregarion alone there are o\·er 100 members
that support this project.

ror these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.




Page 508
Statement of Support
Z-61-2.2.-7




Dear Central Ciry Village,

My name is 7J!k: Et) 1\/iLIJE/{ and! live at f D e I') ;
/2 X/ AZ . I
am writing to Stace my support for Z-61-22-7, high quality multifamily project locaced at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investment in che area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing unics during a housing shortage
• The sale of this sire will help co support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aeschecics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer co see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project thac elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this projecc, both inside and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




Page 509
Statement of Support
Z-61-2.2.-7



Dear Central Ciry Village,


My name is -:-;
Of- z dc I am writing to state my suppori for Z-61-22.-7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & fillmore. r support this project for a number of reasons:


• This project represents a meaningful investment in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of rhe neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project features smaller units at a more reasonable price point, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared ro some of the high rises char are being built ro
the east
• Wirhour chis project, the existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
nor been maintained, and are a blight co the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity ro the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of rhe Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
chat support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22-7.


Thank you,




<£)
Page 510
S1atement of Support
Z•61•ll·7



Dear Central City Village.

f;..
My name is-1-�QC!:..��'-7,,:...:::;i:t;e1.___ and I live at ____________. I
am wrmng to state my su rt for Z·6t u-1 high quality multifamily project locared at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:


• This project represents a meaningful mvestmem in the area which will posinvely impact
the charac1er and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban me near a major arrerial tha1 is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during , housing shortage
• The s,le of this sire will help :o support the minis1ry of the \.lercy HiU Church which
does great work in our communnies
• The project features professional architecture that enhances the aesthetics ofthe area
• The project features smaller units .u a more reasonable price point which allows access
to a greater number of families comp;ired 10 some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Wirhour this proiect, the existing buildmgs will remain Those buildings are old have
nor been maintained, and are a bligh1 to the neighborhood The)· invite vagrancy and
crime We in the neighborhood would much prefer co see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites acti\'ity to the .rea.
• There is strong community supporr for this proJect, both ms1de and outside of the Mercy
Hill congregation. Within 1he Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that support this project.


For these reasons, I respectfully request that you support Z-61-22,-7




Page 511
Statement of Support
Z-61-22-7




Dear Central City Village,

Mynameis -�l,}AN� ?urJ::e Gc\\o.l andllive at �ot,\,\·ni I �L .I
am writing to state my support for Z-61·22·7, high quality multifamily project located at the
SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. I support this project for a number of reasons:

• This project represents a meaningful investmenc in the area which will positively impact
the character and quality of the neighborhood
• This is an urban site near a major arterial that is a good candidate for multifamily
• This project will provide much needed housing units during a housing shortage
• The sale of this site will help to support the ministry of the Mercy Hill Church, which
does great work in our communities
• The project feacures professional architeccure that enhances the aesthetics of the area
• The project feacures smaller units at a more reasonable price poinc, which allows access
to a greater number of families compared to some of the high rises that are being built to
the east
• Without this project, che existing buildings will remain. Those buildings are old, have
not been maintained, and are a blight to the neighborhood. They invite vagrancy and
crime. We in the neighborhood would much prefer to see a newly constructed, high
quality residential project that elevates property values and invites activity to the area.
• There is strong community support for this project, both inside and outside of che Mercy
Hill congregation. Within the Mercy Hill congregation alone there are over 100 members
that suppore this project.

For these reasons, J respectfully request chat you support Z-61-22-7.

Thank you,




X
.____..
-
Page 512
Page 513
     
"  
)$=I)8?=$5I2?GI 255$ 
GI$7)I2> *+I+*I%@DI$7IE=2?280I?:I)F;=)>>I
7GI':8?28A)(I>A;;:=?I,:=IH:8280I'$>)I#  I$I1201I7A5?2,$725GI;=:3)'?I5:'$?)(I$?I?1)II:,I  B)I$8(I2557:=)I
1)I':77A82?GIA=0)>IG:AI?:IB:?)IG)>I,:=I$I7A5?2?A()I:,I=)$>:8>I
?1)I7:>?I27;:=?$8?I:,IE12'1I$=)I?1)I,:55:E280I
 1)I1A='1IIE12'1I1$>I;5$G)(I$IC2?$5I=:5)I?:I?12>
':77A82?GI,:=I()'$()>I2>I28I(2=)I8))(I:,I1)5;I!2?1:A?I?1)
'$>1I.:7I?1)I>$5)I?1)GIE265I&)':7)I28>:5B)8?
 =A7:8?I=:A;I ?1)I()C)5:;7)8?I?)$7I 1$>I(:8)I$8
277)8>)I$7:A8?I:,IE:=4IE2?1I?1)I':77A82?GI$8(I1$>
7$()I>)B)=$5I':8')>>2:8>I:8I?1)2=I;5$8>I$,?)=I1)$=280
':77A82?GI,))(&$'4I1)I()B)5:;7)8?I?)$7IE2?1I1)5;
,=:7I?1)2=I$='12?)'?>I1$>I()52B)=)(II=)B2>2:8>
 1)I()'$G280I8$?A=)I:,I?1)I1A='1I>?=A'?A=)>I$=)I$8I)G)
>:=)I$8(I$=)IE)5':7280I'=27)I$8(I:?1)=I8)-$=2:A>I$'?2C2?G
12>I8)201&:=1::(I,))5>IA8>$,)I$>I$I=)>A5?
 12>I;=:3)'?I=);=)>)8?>I7)$8280/5I28B)>?7)8?I28I?1)I$=)$
E12'1IE255I;:>?2B5GI27;$'?I?1)I'1$=$'?)=I$8(I8)201&:=1::(
 1)I7$3:=2?GI:,I?1)I>2?)I2>I$5=)$(GIH:8)(I-:=I1201I()8>2?G
7A5?2,$725GI 12>I2>I$I':8,:=7280IA>)
 12>I;=:3)'?IE255I;=:B2()I7A'1I8))()(I1:A>280I$8(I1)5;
>:5B)I?1)I$,,:=($&252?GI'=2>2>
:=I?1)>)I=)$>:8>I$8(I7$8GI7:=)II=)>;)'?/5GI=)?I?1$?IG:AI
>A;;:=?I"  I
1$84>I
Page 514
RCVD 3/1/2023




Page 515
I’d probably should start by introduce myself,
My name is Benjamin Hall, and my wife and I have lived in this neighborhood for 13 years.
We not only have our home here, but we have developed two AIA Honor Award winning multifamily properties in
the neighborhood in which we remain the owners and landlords of.
As a community members in our newly reenergized neighborhood association meetings, the community has just
begun to scratch the surface of what the real impact of this new WU zoning would have on the fabric of the
neighborhood.
Specifically, the scale of this project. We essentially will be doubling the population of residents in this
neighborhood on a single parcel that almost occupies an entire city block.


Most of the added impact as outlined below will end up being a conversation with the city and the community in
future discussions. We hope that the voice of this development ownership will be in harmony with the existing
Triangle Neighborhood Association, to not only strengthen our position but to further beautify and protect this
fragile corner of the city.
The neighborhood at this stage has identified a few of the added impacts by this newly introduced WU zoning.
Examples being:
1. A need for neighborhood public trash cans on street corners, which means added trash service
throughout the community.
2. The amplification of existing street parking issues with the possible need for nighttime parking permits.
3. Added police presence / patrolling.
4. New vehicular design strategies like roundabouts and speed bumps to reduce the already high-speed cut
throughs from morning and evening commuters.
5. Additional street lighting for safer pedestrian night walking.
6. Added street crossings for safer pedestrian crossing out of the neighborhood. As we are surrounded on all
three sides by high traffic roads.
These are just a few examples.
We have been hopeful that a neighborly partnership would be formed between this developer and the current
community. This developer would be the largest and loudest single voice of the community organization in the
future. We were optimistic it would be through this re-zoning process that that foundation would be built upon.
Because in the future the added impacts of this project only expedite the effects of what we honestly know is
coming, and that is a denser and larger rental community that will outnumber and outpace homeowners in this
small neighborhood.
Know to the specifics of this parcel itself. The community understands (and frankly has mixed feelings about) what
this new zoning would provide. But it’s been identified that it comes with new opportunities, that are not currently
allowed with current zoning. Like added height, provision for affordable housing (which is different than
“attainable housing”), closer setbacks to the street for the purpose of street activation with commercial and retail
shops on the ground floor. The promotion of true mixed use and live work opportunities. All great attributes that
the WU code zoning provides. All that would or could have verifiable positive outcome for the community and
surrounding public. But instead, the proposed plan from the developer appears to be cherry picking aspects of the
new zoning code like: (high unit density, increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks) while turning its back to the
other parts mentioned prior. From what is currently understood the development is a 100% insular, with no
streetside public activated retail spaces. No opportunity for the community to patron the amenities spaces within.




Page 516
Frankly it’s not a publicly accessible project at all, which seems counter to the spirit of the WU code itself. In fact, I
think this project might operate more like a gated community.


Now understanding, that the ripple effect of a project of this scale in such a small neighborhood. Its mere presence
will be felt through surrounding neighborhoods as well like FQ Story, and Grand Ave. Ironically, this project has
galvanized members of all these neighborhoods under one common objective. (Which frankly I think is low
hanging fruit)
1. The preservation of the bell tower (which we had to bring to the developer’s attention is protected in the
existing setback that already govern the site.)
2. The preservation of the original double wythe constructed brick colonnade (again we have explained that the
cost savings of preserving the authentic construction and its structurally sound footings would yield them a
financial saving vs their proposal to reconstructing, in the exact same location a faux version of this historic
architecture feature.)
3. The preservation and reinvented use of the existing 7,000 sf sanctuary space located on the NW corner of the
parcel. Programed by developer (how they see fit) to be the community component / amenity that would be
accessible to the community and the greater City of Phoenix as outlined in the WU code objective.


When volunteering neighborhood design professional’s asked point blank to the developer. If a alternative site
plan configuration, which preserves these three objectives while maintaining the developers proforma objective
would even be (in the form of the unit count, parking count, and maintaining their proposed height.) considered
acceptable. The developer’s direct response was:
“We have no intentions of proposing any new site plan configuration other than the one already presented.”
Shane Essert during the public community meeting on 02/09/2023


That declaration from Shane was a bit alarming to me.
Ultimately this unfortunately feels like we may not be working with a future community member that has the
same long-term interest as the community itself. Which is very disheartening and concerning.


I’m just going to say what I hope is not the quite part outload. And this is purely the pessimistic in me speaking.
It feels like the goal is to have an unencumbered lot with a new WU high-density zoning that would double the
value of the land, making it prime for a lot resale opportunity.
By carving out these stipulations as concessions deemed valuable by the community. It’s at the point we know the
values of the community and the developer align. In short, we want to make sure that they are going to be long-
term partners and an ally not just to the community but Mercy Hill the church for their future redeveloped across
the street, as they too will most likely need to go through the same re-zoning process due to the desire in include
more than a church facility and act more like a vertical campus with outreach facilities.
Simply put, a short-term transactional opportunity with no string attached could leave Mercy Hill and the
community vulnerable. A parcel almost the size of a city block scrapped of its historical value located in the heart
of the community while we wait for the next speculative builder to propose a different design is the ultimate
scenario we want to avoid.




Page 517
If I have extra time, I am going to try to give an analogy of what I think is happening here. And in some ways as a
small developer, I can sympathize with the developer here. They have chosen to not move forward using the “by
right” process and instead knowingly or unknowingly have entered a process that is much more difficult. The
process is designed give the community a real seat at the table to discuss how the “cake is actually baked”. This is
about discussing the fundamental level of how a building operates and what tangible services it can provide to the
larger context.
From listening in on multiple conversations from the developing party they have consciously or unconsciously
attempted to guide the conversation away to topics about height, color, and “styles” which circumnavigate the
substant nature of the what the re-zoning process is supposed to be about. It should be about how the actual cake
is baked. What functioning spaces comprise the building as a whole.


Phrases like “not penciling out” or “finically unsustainable” have been thrown around in previous meetings. It
requires me to step back and remind myself as a community member it is not the burden or the responsibility of
the community to protect the profit margins of the development. Perspective is important here; the city agenda
notes specify the parcel to be 3.24 acres large. Which is approximately 141,000 sf. If preserving a 7,000 sf footprint
which represents a little under 5% of the site.


If the opportunity of shifting a few site plan components, like the fragmented East portion of the design to be
located on South edge like what Bob Graham had visually demonstrated as a plausible maneuver that would free
up the sanctuary corner for preservation which would make all request whole. This developer would galvanize the
all the support and opposition members with the simple stork of creative thinking. But if this is considered the
bridge too far, too big of a hardship because it changes the visual dominating presents the developer desires at the
corner of Fillmore and 9th Ave. If this is the concession which truly is enough to tip the scale of a project this size.
That should be majorly concerning and should be considered a red flag to everyone here.




Page 518
2/2/23, 4:11 PM ATTACHMENT G

Preserve PHX
Preserve PHX Mail - Please Find a Creative Solution for Mercy Hill Church


Please Find a Creative Solution for Mercy Hill Church
1 message

janettray@aol.com Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:46 AM
Reply-To: janettray@aol.com
To: "shane@trumontgroup.com"
Cc: "hello@preservephx.org"

Dear Mr. Essert,

I'm writing in support of preservation efforts for the Mercy Hill Church. The sanctuary is beautiful! It would wonderful if you
can find a creative way to preserve it.

Preservation of our wonderful local architectural and cultural history greatly enhances our community. Please help protect
this part of our cultural and architectural identity.

Janet Traylor
6502 N. Central Avenue, E401
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Cell: 602-432-7390




Page 519
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747682579111534780&simpl=msg-f%3A1747682579111534780 1/1
2/2/23, 3:28 PM Preserve PHX Mail - Mercy Hill Church Preservation



Preserve PHX



Mercy Hill Church Preservation
1 message

Lisa I Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:06 PM
To: shane@trumontgroup.com
Cc: "hello@preservephx.org"

Hello Mr. Essert,

I understand that your development company is in negotiations for the current Mercy Hill Church site with potential plans
to demolish the building. I'm a native Phoenician who strongly favors maintaining Phoenix historic architecture, especially
because we have lost so much already. While I'm aware that the building does not technically qualify for the historic
register, it remains a historic and important building in the history of Phoenix growth. Perhaps it could be incorporated
into a community building and utilized by future residents, l with a one-of-a-kind history that may increase livability and
sales on the property. We have had so much of our history removed that Phoenix will no longer be unique in its own
right. You can take the lead, promote health neighborhood relationships and become good stewards of our Phoenician
legacy and commit to saving the Mercy Hill Church.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Lisa Irwin




Page 520
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747714041812157107&simpl=msg-f%3A1747714041812157107 1/1
2/2/23, 3:25 PM Preserve PHX Mail - Mercy Hill Church



Preserve PHX



Mercy Hill Church
1 message

Michele Chinichian Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:35 AM
To: shane@trumontgroup.com
Bcc: hello@preservephx.org


Hi Shane,
I am writing in support of preserving Mercy Hill Church, even a compromise of some kind of it's great
historic features would be appreciated. Preservation is key, as Downtown Phoenix is turning from an
architecturally rich, artistic community to a concrete wasteland of highrises and condos. Please
preserve the charm and character of the city so it can remain an appealing and desirable place to live.
I appreciate your consideration.
Michele




Page 521
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747681906043690926&simpl=msg-f%3A1747681906043690926 1/1
1114 Grand Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 254-5599
January 6, 2023
Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Hearing Date Jan. 9, 2023



Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:


The Grand Avenue Members Association (GAMA) represents the area within ¼ mile of Grand Avenue
from Van Buren Street to McDowell Road. Our threefold purpose is to preserve the unique character of
Lower Grand Avenue; to support elimination of blight and promote the revitalization of the
neighborhood’s core and surrounding areas; and to encourage social and economic development that
promotes sustainable practices. The subject property lies within our area of representation.

We have been in communication since July, 2022 with Trumont Development regarding their plans for
the redevelopment of the Mercy Hill Church site. We were encouraged that they reached out to us early in
the design process. From the beginning of our discussions, we alerted them to various neighborhood
concerns, the most important of which was preservation of some portion of the history and
character of the site as part of their new apartment design. The concern was raised by
stakeholders at a neighborhood meeting conducted by GAMA on September 20 and at open GAMA
regular meetings in October and December. We provided formal comments to Trumont in a letter dated
October 2, 2022.

Our request, in brief, was that the most visible and significant parts of the existing church
building be incorporated into the building design. The portion in question included the main
Sanctuary, the arcade extending along Fillmore, and the iconic, and unique, bell tower. These features
encumber about 7,000 square feet of a roughly 106,000 square foot site, and thus we do not
believe this to be an unreasonable request.




Page 522
As examples, we pointed out to Trumont that successful projects that incorporate elements of earlier
neighborhood character include “The Logan at Osborn” (3rd Ave. & Osborn) which incorporated a part of
the Stewart Title Building, and “The Governor” in the Miracle Mile area which will incorporate parts of
the old Safeway store. Other examples include “The Stewart” at Central & McKinley and the pending
redevelopment of the City Center Hotel site.

We contend that retaining elements of earlier construction as part of a new development promotes
creative placemaking and contributes to the sense of place and history of a neighborhood. The “scrape and
rebuild” approach proposed by Trumont erases all trace of any history on the site and does not embed the
design into the existing context.

Trumont justifies their plan by claiming the church is “not historic” and has gone to some pains to
describe why they come to this conclusion. Please note two points. (1) The above argument does not hinge
on whether or not the property is historic; it is about preserving “sense of place” using any positive and
highly visible part of the built environment that is available. And (2) numerous credentialled historic
preservation consultants, myself included, question the conclusion that the building is not historically
eligible. This is not a settled question.

Rezoning the site to WU-T5:5 will be providing this developer with a radical increase in property
entitlement and value. We believe such a windfall to the developer should come with the responsibility to
give back to the community. That is, through the rezoning, the City is creating value, and that value
should be shared by all, not just the property owner.

Therefore, we request that the Central City Village Planning Committee continue this zoning case and
request that the developer modify their design, making a good-faith attempt to satisfying the
neighborhood desire to incorporate significant elements of the church.




Sincerely,




Robert Graham, AIA
President
Grand Avenue Members Association


C: Yassamin Ansari, CD 7
Aaron Kane, CD 7
Shane Essert, Trumont Development
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Mayor Kate Gallego
Council Districts 1-6 +8




Page 523
From: Benjamin Hall
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning Case Z-61-22-7
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 12:36:21 PM


Hi Anthony Grande,
As a resident of the neighborhood (806 N 9th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85007) here are my following
thoughts in regards to Zoning Case Z-61-22-7

1. Zoning:
Why Would this WU Zoning be allowed to deviate from the original intended location along the light
rail if the city has no plans to extend the light rail into this community? The city T5 allows for 5
stories along the light rail ONLY. In this specific case there is no light rail at all.....
Why would the development not request to rezone as R5 like the rest of the community? The same
minimum setbacks would be established that would be aligned with what other single family and
multifamily developments in the community.
Specifically, the required 20; front setback requirement along 9th Ave. (Current proposal has a 10'
setback) Applying the same requirement would establish a cohesive landscape buffer from the
height of the building overshadowing the sidewalk.

2. Density: The property is approx. 101,700sq ft or 2.33 acres.
The surrounding community is zoned high density R5 at a ratio of 43.5 units per acre. The city
rezoned the entire community with R5 to promote this level of density. If the proposed property
aligned with the same standards as the surrounding developments in the community are required to
design to, then the property would be allowed to develop maximum 101 units. Currently they are
proposing to build 126. Which is 25 more units than what would normally be allowed.
That may seem like an insignificant number but there are still ripple effects non the less. Specifically,
in regards to the parking.

3. History:
This property and its construction are of historic significance even if it is technically not on a
preservation list. From a macro perspective, the City of Phoenix has long been criticized that we
have such little history in our building stock. This is an opportunity, to change that narrative slightly
as the community at whole has identified a reverence for the existing arch brick way and bell tower
along Fillmore.
In response to the community's outreach the developer has added "brick arcade frontage" and
"tower" to the drawing. We are pleased to see that, BUT we would like it to read "preserve original
brick frontage and bell tower". To avoid the sinful practice of making a faux brick facade deviation
during construction.

4. Use:
In the event that WU zoning is permitted. We would like to see its original intent applied to this
project. Specifically intergraded office and retail street facing spaces for the community to utilize
and participate in (via rental spaces).
Currently the project has these programed spaces insulated for the use of the community and
designated for the new residence only at the NW and SW corners of the complex. We would like to


Page 524
see this building become an incubator for the community along the entire ground floor street
facades as both office and retail rental spaces that the surrounding art community can occupy as
well.

* My personal opinion is that the existing brick archways along Fillmore would make an ideal entry
into street facing business.

Much appreciated
-Benjamin

benjamin hall design
p. 602.529.2954
e. benjamin@benjaminhalldesign.com
w. www.benjaminhalldesign.com [benjaminhalldesign.com]




Page 525
January 7, 2023


Anthony Grande
Planner, Central City Village Planning Committee
Phoenix City Hall
200 West Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Dear Anthony and Members of the Central City Village Planning Committee:

Regarding Item Z-61-22-7 for the upcoming meeting of the Central City Village Planning Committee, the
Arizona Preservation Foundation supports neighborhood and local preservation group advocacy to
preserve the historic elements of the Mercy Hill Church property and strengthen community
engagement in the design of the property’s future development.

For years, before the COVID-19 pandemic, APF volunteers organized walking tours of historic Grand
Avenue during the Grand Avenue Festival. The offices of several preservation related organizations,
including APF, are housed in the neighborhood. The stock of vintage and historic buildings along and
adjacent to Grand Avenue is impressive and an important social and economic asset to our capital city.
Any unnecessary chipping away of this unique neighborhood’s character would be a detriment.

Thank you for considering the future of this historic property and its neighborhood.

Sincerely yours,




Jim McPherson
President, Board of Directors
Arizona Preservation Foundation

cc: Board Members, Arizona Preservation Foundation
Ashley Harder, Preserve Phoenix
Beatrice Moore, Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
Bob Graham, Grand Avenue Members Association
G.G. George, Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition




P.O. Box 13492, Phoenix, AZ 85002 • 602-687-7092 • info@azpreservation.org • EIN 86-0371336
Page 526
Dennis Michael Burke
1126 W. Edgemont Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007


January 6, 2023

Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department 200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St. Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment Hearing Date Jan. 9, 2023



Dear Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:

The Mercy Hill Church is a gem of a building. It is impossible not to see it as a future gallery or restaurant space
for a dynamic neighborhood and arts district. If the developer cannot see that, then the wrong developer is
engaged. Central city developers need to think differently than far-suburban developers who are used to
demolishing strip malls and fast-food restaurants. This is not that.

The people who laid those red bricks one by one are probably all gone now, but they made a contribution to
our town that should not be tossed aside. By remembering their artistic work and by enjoying the shade of the
long arcade they provided us, we deepen the value of our community.

Please deny this application for short-sighted development and insist on something much better, or simply allow
more time to pass for the right development to come along, as it will.

Sincerely,




Dennis M. Burke
Encanto Manor Neighborhood
(602) 908-4067




Page 527
January 6, 2023

Mr. Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ. 855003

RE: SEC 9th & Fillmore Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting

Dear Mr. Grande,

I am the managing partner of Savana, the owner of the property on the northwest corner of 9th
Avenue and Fillmore – directly across from Mercy Hill Church. We have owned the property for
15+ years and have planned a neighborhood-friendly residential project on the currently vacant
lot. When planning our project, we very much appreciated the historic relevance of the nearby
buildings as well as the neighborhood feel of the surrounding area. As a result, we planned a
modest two-level set of buildings, despite the zoning allowance to go much higher.

With respect to the above-mentioned zoning request, I have two concerns:

• The developers have attempted to incorporate a small portion of the historic beauty of
Mercy Hill Church through the addition of the brick arcade to the north side. However,
this strikes me as a minor concession given the beauty and historic value of the
property. I would like to see more of the historic building preserved and incorporated
into the project design.

• The setbacks for the project seem small given the scale of the building they are
proposing. There are no buildings of this scope in the immediate neighborhood and to
consume such a large footprint with a 50 ft high structure is imposing, and not in line
with the neighborhood. I realize they have the zoning to go to this height, but I would
recommend preserving or expanding the setback from the street and sidewalk to better
align with the building height.


Many thanks for considering our concern for the aesthetics of this project as it impacts the
neighborhood.

My best,




Nora Hannah
Managing Member, Savana, LLC



Page 528
January 9, 2023

Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Hearing Date Jan. 9, 2023



Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:

I am a business owner, artist, and community member who has been on Grand Avenue since
2013. My first introduction to Grand Avenue was working for a creative company that moved to
Grand Avenue because they were priced out of Roosevelt Row.

I am submitting a formal “NO” on Agenda Item #8 for Zoning Case Z-61-22-7.

Many of the residents and business owners support a higher density living development that
would bring new business to the area, but this development still has much work to do to
integrate in a meaningful way with the community.

Their designs do not show research or connection to the vibrancy of the surrounding community,
and look like every other development going up left and right in this city. Preservation of the
visual sense of place of Grand Avenue is paramount, and the Mercy Hill Church has a stylized
architecture that is classically recognizable to the area. The elements of the main Sanctuary,
Arcade extending along Fillmore, and the iconic bell tower must be preserved. If not, this
development will continue the trajectory of Phoenix into architectural mediocrity.

The parking plan also needs attention. The Triangle Neighborhood is already tight to maneuver
in high density areas and there must be more thought into the mobility and ability for vehicular
traffic as the street parking should remain free and ample for visitors to the district. This is
another major lesson to learn from other cities, and even present existing developments.

It is imperative these matters be thought through past economic gain. There are many other
types of value that exist in the world, and that is a big part as to why Grand Avenue is what it is
today.


Sincerely,
Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com




Page 529
From: Ben Overbaugh
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Case Z-61-22-7
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2023 10:10:29 AM


Hello Anthony,

Frankly put, this development should not be approved with a reduced amount of required
parking inside the development.

I am a resident and a home-owner on 10th ave and Fillmore St. I drive down Fillmore
multiple times per day. It's a great street that is rarely crowded. I am concerned that a
consideration is being made to reduce the number of required parking spaces for this project.

I have lived in a gated apartment complex in a nice area of Phoenix that did not have enough
parking for all of their residents. This required unlucky residents to park out on the street,
away from their residences. On one such occasion, my catalytic converter was stolen.

Forcing residents in this proposed apartment complex to park on the street will have many
adverse effects. I believe crime will increase, as people will learn that cars are parked where
the owners can not see or hear them. Traffic will drastically increase at the same time that the
effective driving space on Fillmore Street and 9th Ave will decrease due to cars parked on
both sides of the road. This will increase danger for pedestrians, bicyclists, and for children
and animals who live and play in the neighborhood. This will also increase hit and run
accidents as vehicles are forced to squeeze down narrow crowded streets.

I am all for community development, but it needs to be done in a manner that maintains or
increases the quality of life for the current residents in the community.

I will repeat my statement that this development should not be approved with a reduced
amount of required parking inside the development.

Thank you for your time.

-Ben Overbaugh




Page 530
Page 531
Page 532
From: Courtney Davis
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: SEC 9th Ave & Fillmore Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 5:07:29 PM
Attachments: image001.png


Mr. Grande,
Know this is a late correspondence given the virtual hearing on this matter is scheduled to
commence an hour from now. As the owner of the block between 9th & 10th Avenues on the north
side of Grand Avenue, I wanted to express my only concern regarding the proposed apartment
complex where Mercy Hill Church currently occupies the land. That concern is the amount of street
parking that is built into the developer’s plan (in addition to the expected increase that will occur
naturally). Specifically, I’ve noticed a discrepancy in the developer’s conceptual site plan drawing
which shows street parking that is “tucked in” to the site’s property along Fillmore Street. Their
conceptual building perspective – a simulated overhead look of Fillmore Street – shows that the
parking is not tucked in to the property, but shown as extended out into the street.

After seeing Taylor Street turn into a dangerous one lane gauntlet because of insufficient on-site
parking for the existing apartments just west of 7th Avenue; I would hate to see the same thing
happen to Fillmore and 9th Avenue. I’m hoping the final approval requires the developer of the
proposed apartment complex to create parking along the street that will not “shrink” Fillmore down
to effectively a one lane road.

Regards.

Courtney C. Davis
President
Sterling Food Service
920 Grand Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 252-9608









Page 533
Mercy Hill Church Development Case Z-61-22-7.

To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov

Dear City of Phoenix,
I would like to request that this case be continued at the Planning
Commission meeting on February 2nd for additional time to work out a
compromise.
With a new look at the project it seems that the red brick colonnade,
bell tower and sanctuary are architecturally significant character buildings
that contribute to the rich history of the Historic Grand Avenue district and
would enhance the project while creating a memorial to the 80 years of
church history at the site.
The 4-story project should step down to the adjoining single story
neighborhood.
The traffic congestion at 7th Avenue; onto Taylor Street; and onto
Grand Avenue needs mitigation as ingress and egress at all these points
will be difficult especially at rush hour.
$1,400 for a studio apartment and $ 2,000 for a 2 bedroom apartment
is not affordable. There need to be some designated affordable units. What
young person such as students could afford this.
Bob Graham, President of the Grand Avenue Members Assoc. has
re-worked the Norris site plan, showing how the sanctuary, bell tower and
colonnades can be preserved while not taking away any parking, or rentable
sq. footage from the site. It actually adds sq. footage via rentable sanctuary
space, and makes the footprint of the structure integrated into the
surrounding small scale neighborhood better.
A variety in the footprint is need so it does not create a sheer wall on
all sides and offers more green space.
Lower level small commercial spaces (including art studio space) to
create more vibrancy and welcoming exterior is needed. Along with creative
design features that will tie into the adjoining neighborhood character.

Sincerely,




Page 534
From: Steve Weiss
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Please continue case Z-61-22-7 at Planning Commission
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:38:53 PM


To whom it may concern,

There is a tendency to replace an originally well-built structure with a less well-built structure
in order to generate profit. The trouble is, when the really well-built vintage building stock is
replaced by buildings that think more about profitability than legacy and community, a
neighborhood ends up with mediocrity and a lack of historical significance. Our world
becomes lesser for the sake of profit.

The red brick colonnade. bell tower and sanctuary are architecturally significant character
buildings that contribute to the rich history of the Historic Grand Avenue district and would
enhance the project while creating a memorial to the 80 years of church history at the site.
Building a 4-story typical apartment complex with no recognition of what’s replaced is an
insult to Phoenix residents and is an overwhelming addition to the character of an existing
neighborhood.

I urge the Planning Commission to continue this request for approval, and consider a better
compromise approach for the community and ultimately, the respect of the developer for
LISTENING.

Thank you,

Steve Weiss
2938 North 15th Drive
Phoenix AZ
==========================
Steve Weiss
Executive Director
No Festival Required
Independent Cinema
steve@nofestivalrequired.com
cell-602-432-0641
https://www.nofestivalrequired.com [nofestivalrequired.com]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nofestivalrequired [linkedin.com]

Celebrating 20 years of Truly Independent Programming
2002-2022 and counting!




Page 535
From: Snoodmen -
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 7 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: MercyHill Church Development #Z-61-22-7
Date: Monday, January 30, 2023 3:51:46 PM
Attachments: Secondary Snoodmen Letter Z-61-22 Mercy Hill Aparment Redevelopment.pdf
Snoodmen Package regarding Z-61-22 Mercy Hill Aparment Redevelopment 2023-01-30 at 3.39.53 PM.pdf


Hi there ~

Please see the attached with my formal "NO" stance regarding the Zoning Case #Z-61-22-7. I
have included both my letter individually as well as a PDF that includes elements referenced
in the letter.

Thank you ~


Michelle Meyer
CEO + H.S.I.C.
SNOODMEN, LLC
847-363-2807
www.snoodcity.com [snoodcity.com]







Page 536
January 27, 2023

Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix

RE: Z-61-22-7, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment



Dear Phoenix Planning Commissioners,

Greetings, I am writing again with a stance of a “NO”, or a continuance for Zoning Case
Z-61-22-7, known as the Mercy Hill Church Development.

The reason for my letter is 3-fold. One is to support the community that I have been part
of since 2013, two is to speak to high priority adjustments the project should consider, and last
to address the letter sent to this committee by Mr. Paul Johnson.

I know that often you do not receive many case letters, but it does not mean they do not
care. Not everyone has the time or ability to craft a response, even when it is so important.
Many have a combination of work, families, and businesses to run. Statement requests often
come on short notice, so I hope you highly consider the weight of the people who have taken
the time to write letters, the place they hold in the community, and how many people their voices
represent. I am the founder of Snood City: an art collective and the business owner. I alone
directly represent the voices of 15 people who work with me and are based on Grand Ave, with
500+ in my local network. It is the developers sole job, which has full dedication of time, money,
and resources to make sure their projects go through as they want. This is an advantage for
them to the fact that people are busy working to get by and oftentimes don’t even know when a
decision like this is on the docket.

Many agreeable compromises have been set forth by community members. Highly
notable is the rework of the site plan by architect Bob Graham (President of the Grand Ave
Members Assoc.) to preserve the sanctuary, bell tower and colonnades which does not take
away (it in fact adds) rentable sq. footage space. Also important to consider is the footprint of
the structure. It should be dynamic and integrate into the surrounding neighborhood better. The
building should not simply be a large box with towering walls that dwarfs existing homes. There
is a unique opportunity here for the type of rentable space offered, and the project should
seriously consider small commercial spaces at the ground level. There is a high demand for
downtown studio spaces, especially for artists, which would further support the draw of Grand
Avenue. Incorporating spaces of this nature will be a big win for the neighborhood. Overall, this
development needs a serious creative design rework. Take a trip to Grand Ave and look at the
personality. We do not want something that looks like every other development in every other
city, including this one. There is no originality with what has been presented by the developers
and we demand better.




Page 537
Finally to address the letter by Mr. Paul Johnson:

The stance of Mr. Johnson’s letter to this board, submitted on Jan 5, 2023 is
aggravating. To call a studio apartment rented at $1,200 “affordable” is laughable. It is
common sentiment that the local housing market is almost criminal. The standard is that
when applying to a rental you must have 3x rent for income. That means, someone has
to be making $50k per year to cover their expenses just to live in a studio apartment.
How is that affordable housing? Additionally, his comment with intention to “[...extend the
benefits that have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to
West of 7th Ave“] What are those benefits? Terrible parking and street maneuverability?
Bland architecture? Unused 400 sq ft. gym amenities? The notion that the Grand Ave
community wants anything like what has happened on Roosevelt Row is absurd. It puts
on full display the gap in understanding of the local ideology and what is desired. The
reason Grand Ave exists is despite these kinds of developers. Business owners support
high density projects that will bring more people to the area, but not at the cost of the
soul of the community. That is why Grand Ave is even attractive in the first place. It is
interesting and unique. When I look at Roosevelt Row, I don’t see “high quality” projects,
I see cookie cutter, so-called luxury highrises. Grand Ave has its own sense of place,
and we want to keep it that way.


I challenge this Board and the Mercy Hill developers to really question what their driving factor is
for this project. Meaningful communication and readjustment of what a “true urban project”
means for the Grand Avenue community is essential, and has not yet been achieved.




Thank you for your time,




Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com




Page 538
January 27, 2023

Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix

RE: Z-61-22-7, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment



Dear Phoenix Planning Commissioners,

Greetings, I am writing again with a stance of a “NO”, or a continuance for Zoning Case
Z-61-22-7, known as the Mercy Hill Church Development.

The reason for my letter is 3-fold. One is to support the community that I have been part
of since 2013, two is to speak to high priority adjustments the project should consider, and last
to address the letter sent to this committee by Mr. Paul Johnson.

I know that often you do not receive many case letters, but it does not mean they do not
care. Not everyone has the time or ability to craft a response, even when it is so important.
Many have a combination of work, families, and businesses to run. Statement requests often
come on short notice, so I hope you highly consider the weight of the people who have taken
the time to write letters, the place they hold in the community, and how many people their voices
represent. I am the founder of Snood City: an art collective and the business owner. I alone
directly represent the voices of 15 people who work with me and are based on Grand Ave, with
500+ in my local network. It is the developers sole job, which has full dedication of time, money,
and resources to make sure their projects go through as they want. This is an advantage for
them to the fact that people are busy working to get by and oftentimes don’t even know when a
decision like this is on the docket.

Many agreeable compromises have been set forth by community members. Highly
notable is the rework of the site plan by architect Bob Graham (President of the Grand Ave
Members Assoc.) to preserve the sanctuary, bell tower and colonnades which does not take
away (it in fact adds) rentable sq. footage space. Also important to consider is the footprint of
the structure. It should be dynamic and integrate into the surrounding neighborhood better. The
building should not simply be a large box with towering walls that dwarfs existing homes. There
is a unique opportunity here for the type of rentable space offered, and the project should
seriously consider small commercial spaces at the ground level. There is a high demand for
downtown studio spaces, especially for artists, which would further support the draw of Grand
Avenue. Incorporating spaces of this nature will be a big win for the neighborhood. Overall, this
development needs a serious creative design rework. Take a trip to Grand Ave and look at the
personality. We do not want something that looks like every other development in every other
city, including this one. There is no originality with what has been presented by the developers
and we demand better.




Page 539
Finally to address the letter by Mr. Paul Johnson:

The stance of Mr. Johnson’s letter to this board, submitted on Jan 5, 2023 is
aggravating. To call a studio apartment rented at $1,200 “affordable” is laughable. It is
common sentiment that the local housing market is almost criminal. The standard is that
when applying to a rental you must have 3x rent for income. That means, someone has
to be making $50k per year to cover their expenses just to live in a studio apartment.
How is that affordable housing? Additionally, his comment with intention to “[...extend the
benefits that have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to
West of 7th Ave“] What are those benefits? Terrible parking and street maneuverability?
Bland architecture? Unused 400 sq ft. gym amenities? The notion that the Grand Ave
community wants anything like what has happened on Roosevelt Row is absurd. It puts
on full display the gap in understanding of the local ideology and what is desired. The
reason Grand Ave exists is despite these kinds of developers. Business owners support
high density projects that will bring more people to the area, but not at the cost of the
soul of the community. That is why Grand Ave is even attractive in the first place. It is
interesting and unique. When I look at Roosevelt Row, I don’t see “high quality” projects,
I see cookie cutter, so-called luxury highrises. Grand Ave has its own sense of place,
and we want to keep it that way.


I challenge this Board and the Mercy Hill developers to really question what their driving factor is
for this project. Meaningful communication and readjustment of what a “true urban project”
means for the Grand Avenue community is essential, and has not yet been achieved.




Thank you for your time,




Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com




Page 540
   


                                 


                                 




 1/%2
--2.0(,2

 



                          
 




 




            




 
Page 541
 




 







          






  

          
 
  




  









 1/%2 
            




 "!*$ 
$0"5(**'30"'(2$$#$4$*-.+$,2 .!02+$,2%--2.0(,2!,#.!0)(,&"-3,20-3&'*5$/3(4!*$,22-#$4$*-.$0.0-.-1!*
Dear Central City Village Planning Committee Members,

My name is Paul Johnson. I am writing to express my support for Z-61-22-7, a high quality
multifamily project located at the SEC of 9th Ave & Fillmore. As a disclosure I am a partner
with the church on the project.

As a long time supporter of downtown Phoenix, this project helps us extend the benefits that
have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to West of 7th Ave. As
high quality, high density project west of 7th Ave will help bring much more investment dollars
to a side of the street that has had scattered development, but nothing that reaches the quality
of project being proposed.

Along with my partners, the church, are a supporter of improving the West of 7th ave, because
we intend to stay a part of this area. We believe that improving this side of the street, will
benefit all the residences and business that exist there.

In addition to this, the requested zoning is just good land use. Much of the existing proposed
property is already zoned R-5, so it could already go multifamily. However, by rezoning to WU
Code, ti allows staff and the developer the flexibility necessary to create a true urban project,
rather than trying to design around what the existing site would allow, which would result in a
less cohesive project. City staff, has recommended approval, I believe because it is next to a
major arterial, and they know that if this site is developed hodgepodge the area will suffer.
They recommended it as having a strong basis for multifamily at this location.

The units are not subsidized housing that is often misunderstood as the only version of
affordable housing. This is market rent housing, that is affordable for middle class families and
individuals who are finding it more difficult to find housing in our existing market. The product
is designed to be more affordable to the average family or young professional.

Last, the existing buildings are old and are way beyond the structural lifespan of the buildings.
They have no historic value, and currently, unless we can make a change, they create a
significant financial burden on the church. This project allows the church to stay in the area
providing their services, and benefits them and the neighborhood with a quality project.

For these reasons, I strongly support Project Z-61-22-7. I hope you will, too.

Sincerely,


Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson




Page 542
2/2/23, 3:48 PM Preserve PHX Mail - Mercy Hill Development



Preserve PHX



Mercy Hill Development
1 message

Jennifer Kruse Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:17 AM
To: mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
Cc: Hello@preservephx.org

Dear Mayor Gallego,

As a homeowner in the Triangle Neighborhood, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed development by
Trumont Group on the Mercy Hill Church location at 745 W Fillmore.

The Triangle Neighborhood has a historic and eclectic character unique to Phoenix that needs to be preserved. The
Mercy Hill building is a significant piece of our neighborhood's history and it is unacceptable that its historic features are
not being preserved as part of the development plans.

We are asking that the church façade, sanctuary, and arched arcade should be incorporated into the new development.
These character-defining features are in excellent condition and part of the original 1946 design by Lescher & Mahoney,
and the footprint of this section of the church is small considering the overall acreage of the site.

I urge you to consider the concerns of the homeowners and residents in the area. We need to ensure that any new
development fits the character of our neighborhood and is respectful of the history and heritage of the area.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Kruse




Page 543
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/4/?ik=0444c2e455&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1756555470027866818&simpl=msg-f%3A1756555470027866818 1/1
From: Preserve PHX
To: G Hawk
Cc: Anthony M Grande; Council District 7 PCC; Beatrice Moore; gggfabgal@outlook.com; Sarah Stockham
Subject: Re: Mercy Hill Church
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:19:16 PM


Hello,

Forwarding to Sarah Stockton who is managing Anthony's role while he is out of office.

Thank you!


PreservePHX.org [preservephx.org] | Facebook [facebook.com] | Instagram
[instagram.com]



On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:46 PM G Hawk wrote:
Good morning,

As a retired individual who now owns a small business on Grand Avenue I find myself
caught in the middle between the gentrification and growth of the downtown area and the
preservation of what few older structures and regions of the city remain. I am in favor of
supporting the increasing population of the Phoenix area by providing housing that can
accommodate them but I also think it's critically important to make sure that we preserve
what we have that reminds us of what Phoenix was not that long ago.

Early residents of Phoenix were industrious and imaginative. They created a land that
became enterprising and fertile and this helped the valley grow to what it is today. If we give
up the imagination and forget the fertility of the neighborhoods we run the risk of losing the
character that's been building for generations.

Minor changes with the design plans and the preservation of at least parts of the Mercy Hill
church will maintain some of the history and continuity that it holds with other structures in
downtown Phoenix, ie. the Encanto Park clubhouse. Not only will the complete demolition
of the Mercy Hill church damage this relationship but I'm afraid the trickle down effect will
have a negative impact on the surrounding historic districts. Del Norte Pl., Roosevelt,
Oakland, Woodland, FQ story are just a few that may be negatively impacted.

Thank you for your time and thank you for your continued hard work.

G Hawk
Grand ave small business owner
602-790-8365




Page 544
February 9, 2023
Anthony Grande
Central City Village Planning Committee
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Z-61-22, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment
Hearing Date February 13, 2023

Mr. Grande and Members of the Village Planning Committee:

Vice Mayor Yassmin Ansari and Mayor Kate Gallego are responsible for upholding the
commitments they promised to the citizens when they ran for their positions. The Central City
Village Planning Committee is also responsible for this commitment. In my neighborhood,
District 7, we are waiting to see if this committee, the Vice Mayor, and the Mayor are serious
about those promises.
The potential rezoning of MercyHill Church (Z-61-22-7) does nothing to uphold those
promises. The site currently houses a handful of low-income seniors who will be displaced due
to this rezoning. The incoming developers plan to charge what they described as “market-rate”
housing at a whopping $1,400 for studio apartments. I can guarantee you that when I speak with
the constituents of this district, from 7th St. to 7th Ave, ASU housing, PAX, Ave, The Rey, and
beyond, they are dismayed by this. When I further explain the issues surrounding Z-61-22-7,
many are disheartened to hear that this is happening underneath the leadership of the Vice Mayor
and Mayor, who both ran on platforms that are diametrically opposed to redevelopment plans
such as these.
There is nothing in this development that contributes to sustainable growth that Vice
Mayor Ansari has addressed numerous times as the city rapidly expands. No solar panels, no
canopy coverages, and certainly nothing remotely close to a green building, as was discussed at
the COP27 meeting. There is nothing in this development that contributes to affordable housing,
where Mayor Gallego has stated Phoenix residents need “rent that makes sense.” In fact, this
development has already led to the demolition of a single-family dwelling on 9th Ave to pave a
new parking lot for MercyHill’s hopeful new church they wish to develop across the street from
the current existing church.
These developments are discouraging, but they are not set in stone. The promises made to
Phoenix constituents in District 7 cannot be lip service. There is an opportunity to develop
Phoenix in a mindful way allowing the city to negotiate on behalf of citizens, and not on behalf
of developers. This parcel is a massive piece of land and could be an incredible opportunity for a
developer whose interests are more aligned with the promises made by our elected officials. I




Page 545
implore this committee to oppose this zoning measure, as I implore the City Council to fulfill the
promises they made on the campaign trail and bring green, affordable development to our
downtown neighborhood.

Thank you for your time,

Mollie McCurdy
Triangle Neighborhood Homeowner and Voter


C: Yassamin Ansari, CD 7
Aaron Kane, CD 7
Shane Essert, Trumont Development
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Mayor Kate Gallego
Council Districts 1-6 +8




Page 546
From: Preserve PHX
To: Beatrice Moore; Robert Graham; rbrevoort@cox.net; mollieannemccurdy@gmail.com;
Benjamin@benjaminhalldesign.com; Aaron T Kane; Sarah Stockham
Cc: anthony@mercyhillphoenix.com; Shane@trumontgroup.com; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Follow Up to Community Discussion 7-9-23
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2023 7:49:31 PM


Hello Anthony, Sarah and Aaron,

I am following up as I agreed to share an update as to todays' discussions between community
organizations and the applicant for Z-61-22-7. Tonight Shane Essert, applicant for Z-61-22-7
hosted a 30 minute meeting with members of the Community in preparation for his agenda
item being heard at Monday's Central City Planning Committee meeting. Organizations
represented were Grand Avenue Members Association, Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation,
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition, Preserve Phoenix as well as residents and builders
that live within the Triangle Neighborhood. Shane presented that the plan being put forth at
Monday's meeting will be the plan presented to the Village at its last meeting in January
except that there will be an inclusion of the bell tower in their setback, it was indicated that
they are willing to see it apply as a stipulation to their requested zoning. I believe no other
adjustments have been made to address the various community concerns brought forth in both
private and public discussions with the developer. The applicant has declined to determine the
feasibility of retaining the Sanctuary, colonnade and bell tower as requested by the
Community and will not accept a stipulation to preserve the Sanctuary and colonnade.

As you can imagine the community is incredibly disappointed and OPPOSES the plan as
presented. So, in preparations for Monday's meeting we are seeking to better understand what
stipulations may be under consideration for the proposed plan and what community benefit
they may or may not offer. We are also looking to better address the developer's plan for
live/work units and artist work spaces within the plan and if there are or are not stipulations
applied for those elements. Lastly, could a breakdown be made to address the affordable
housing units that exist on the property and an update as to what the planning effort is to retain
those critical needed units within the neighborhood. Answering some or all of these questions
would be greatly appreciated as the community tries to advocate for a better plan than what
has been presented in the past.

Thank you for your assistance in coordinating this particular case with our community groups
and with concerned neighbors. Everyone's commitment to transparency and acting in a cordial
nature has made this process easier and is appreciated so very much.


Have a great evening,

Ashley Harder




PreservePHX.org [preservephx.org] | Facebook [facebook.com] | Instagram
[instagram.com]




Page 547
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
1301 Grand Avenue #8
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.391.4016



Feb 10, 2023

Central City Village Planning Committee Members
C/O Sarah Stockham
Phoenix, AZ 85003


Dear Planning Committee Members (Re: Z-61-22-7)

Because so much time has passed since my original letter, I am updating it here.

As the Director of Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation, an Arizona non-profit
corporation, our mission has been to preserve the history and arts along the Historic
Grand Avenue corridor (McDowell south to Van Buren). As part of that mandate, I
organized the Grand Avenue Festival for 8 years, an award winning arts Festival that
showcased the arts and history in the area.

Independent of that effort, my partner and I have restored and adaptively re-used
vintage and historic buildings in the area for over 30 years (including the Bragg’s Pie
Factory building), providing affordable art studios and incubator business spaces.

Trumont Group’s residential design falls well short of a quality residential project, or a
mix of uses, that Phoenix should be building in older inner city neighborhoods at this
point in time. We have learned enough about sustainability, affordability, adaptive
reuse, interconnectivity, and pedestrian friendliness, that we should be demanding a
more integrated, financially accessible, less disruptive, and functional outcome.

Preserving a small 7,000 sq. ft. section of a sprawling 80 year old church complex, not
only lends a missing sustainability component to the project, but helps create a
needed step-down to the small scale residential to the north and west, softening the
sheer 4-story walls. The character contributing architecture (Lescher and Mahoney)
makes for a tie-in to the adjoining and nearby vintage and historic structures.

However, at every turn Mr. Essert has not deviated from his original line that the
footprint of the bell tower, colonnades and sanctuary are not worth saving, or not
possible to save. Instead of looking for creative ways for a successful adaptive reuse
that would enhance his new construction, he has steadfastly looked for ways the re-



Page 548
use will not work. Developers don’t necessarily have to be creative, but they do need to
know how to hire creative designers and architects and give them leeway to work their
magic. And to actually listen to, and successfully address, community concerns.

We have heard repeatedly from Mr. Essert and the sellers (MercyHill Church) how
much they love the neighborhood - but always couched in how much they think the
neighborhood should transform to reflect the rampant development to the east side
of 7th Avenue. We know if that were to happen, development pressure would lead to
the destruction of much of our delightful, small scale neighborhood. This will be only
the second commercial 4-story building in our district (the first being a Holiday Inn
Express buffered by the large expanse of University Park).

Because it is our hope that the historic fabric along, and in close proximity to Grand
Avenue and the original Route 60, will exist far into the future for new generations, we
must oppose this rezoning in its current form. Where are the much needed affordable
housing units? Where is a courteous step-down to the adjoining small residential?
Where are the art studios and small commercial ground floor spaces requested by the
neighborhood early on? And where is the preservation of key character-contributing
church elements honoring 80 years of church history?

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Beatrice Moore (signed electronically)
Beatrice Moore, Director




Page 549
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition




HISTORIC FRANKLIN SCHOOL


February 10, 2023
Via Email
Central City Village Planning Committee
RE: February 13, 2023 Meeting
Agenda item #6: Request for zoning change to WU code

PHOENIX HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION OPPOSES ZONING CHANGE

Dear Member of the Central City Village Planning Committee:

Grand Avenue and its environs have always been part of the idea that created Phoenix.
The most cohesive part of its’ history is the portion from Five Points (Van Buren/7th
Avenue/and Grand) to Six Points (McDowell/19th Avenue/and Grand).

The Story Historic District is adjacent to Fairview Place Historic District, and Encanto-
Palmcroft Historic District, both of which are adjacent to the Del Norte Place Historic
District. Grand Avenue is also adjacent to Roosevelt, Oakland and Woodland Historic
Districts. Anything that disturbs the historic setting of Grand Avenue has repercussions,
like earthquake aftershocks, to affect the adjacent historic districts. All of these
elements are part of the undivided whole of Phoenix history.

The Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition (PHNC) is composed of people who live
throughout the historic neighborhoods within the city. We come together because we
value the history of Phoenix, and we seek to share our love of our city’s historic
neighborhoods to preserve not only the buildings, but also help stabilize and build
strong communities.



Page 550
The MercyHill Church was designed in 1946 by Lescher & Mahoney as part of Phoenix’s
post World War ll history. The façade is remarkably similar to the pre-war Clubhouse at
Encanto Park designed by the same firm.

The PHNC is concerned about the damaging impact of this proposed project on the
existing neighborhoods and the larger Grand Avenue community. While the MercyHill
Church may not be technically historical, it is certainly historically significant due to the
original church design by Lescher & Mahoney.

The PHNC supports the church’s efforts to recover financially and continue its mission
by selling their property; however, the coalition cannot support a plan that doesn’t
incorporate the architecturally significant sanctuary, colonnade and bell tower within
the larger 2.5 acre site plan. The Grand Avenue community has requested partial
preservation of specific character-defining structures; affordable housing units; artist
work spaces; and a step down to the interior residential neighborhood. The current plan
does not include any of these provisions.

Consequently, the Phoenix Historic Neighborhood Coalition does not support this
rezoning and is opposed to moving forward until these items are addressed with
adequate stipulations.

Thank you for your time and attention to this information.

Jack Marks
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition
1638 Palmcroft Way SW
602-920-4751






Page 551
February 10, 2023

Central City Village Planning Committee Members
C/O Sarah Stockham
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE Z-61-22-7; SE Corner of 9th Avenue & Fillmore


Dear Central City Village Planning Committee,

On behalf of Preserve Phoenix the advocacy voice for historic preservation in Phoenix, I am writing to
request that stipulations be created to preserve a historic building, colonnade and bell tower for Zoning
Application Z-61-22-7, a 3.24 acre proposed development site on the southeast corner of 9th Avenue
and Fillmore. The applicant has not provided an adequate community benefit in exchange for
entitlements and their current plan is not reflective of the neighborhood or of the City’s goals for quality
development that imparts a positive impact to the community it’s built in. Preserve Phoenix does not
support a plan that doesn’t include stipulations to preserve the historic structures and asks the
members of the Central City Village Planning Committee to vote “No” and not recommend this
application in its current iteration to the Planning Commission.

Our organization has been continuously engaged with the community impacted by the proposed
development at 9th Avenue and Fillmore over the past year. Since April of 2022 Preserve Phoenix has
met routinely with representatives of Mercy Hill Church along with Grand Avenue Members Association,
Grand Avenue Arts and Preservation, their members and members of the community. The potential
demolition of a longstanding historic building and church within a small neighborhood off historic Grand
Avenue generated great concerns for the members of the community and the public. Preserve Phoenix
has convened these organizations and members to coordinate community engagement to determine a
consensus to present a unified voice to the City and to the developer.

Please see attached Neighborhood petition with 47 signatures of residents and small business owners
that live in or are directly adjacent to the Triangle Neighborhood, along with seven letters we’ve received
that have been sent to Councilwoman Ansari’s District 7 Office and to the City of Phoenix Planning
Department. The Neighborhood petition asks neighbors to support 6 requests for the proposed zoning
allowance, including the primary request by Preserve Phoenix, GAMA and GAAP to preserve and
incorporate the Sanctuary, colonnade and bell tower into the development plan. I am disappointed to
relay that none of these requests have been met in the current plan. At this time no alternative plans or
even preliminary studies have been produced that substantiate the applicant’s position that their
proposed plan is the only workable plan. The Sanctuary building, colonnade and bell tower are situated

Preserve Phoenix • 734 W. Polk St., Phoenix, AZ 85007
www.PreservePHX.org
Page 552
in an ideal location to be incorporated into the larger 3.24 acre site and its preservation creates other
desired design and community benefits like creating a step down into the interior of the neighborhood
and allocating open space for the public’s benefit at the corner of 9th Avenue and Fillmore. This is what
the community has formally requested from the developer and the developer has denied the primary
request as well as the other 5 requests included in the petition. We are calling on members of the
Central City Village Planning Committee to question how this application provides an acceptable benefit
to the community and are those benefits addressed through stipulations to zoning?

The applicant and the developer were given the opportunity to improve the project through a
continuance but have not changed their plan in a meaningful way or accommodated public comments
and concerns. They have not provided sufficient or concrete evidence to support their reasoning. The
developer has stated that the community’s request of partial preservation would create a “less optimal”
design and are concerned that the property would be “less marketable”. We disagree with this
reasoning, find it deficient and maintain that incorporating the historic parts of the property into a
development plan will optimize the development by making it unique, desirable and more marketable.
There is great benefit to the community and to the City in preserving character defining historic
buildings. The Phoenix specific benefits including the economic benefits of preservation have been
measured and reported on in the Phoenix City Council’s adopted 2021 plan “Preservation Phoenix Style”.
If you are unfamiliar with the report I encourage you to review it and learn about an important measured
economic driver in our City that informs zoning cases of this nature. To put it succinctly, a diverse
building stock makes our City and neighborhoods better performing and more resilient.

Preserve Phoenix is unequivocally supportive of building housing and commonly advocates that older
critical affordable housing units be maintained as one part of our City’s efforts to address the current
housing crisis. We are proponents that developers can preserve important and “cool” buildings and build
new within the same plan and that it makes the plan better. The community impacted by the proposed
development in the Triangle Neighborhood is greatly supportive of seeing housing built at the Mercy Hill
Church site. They have even requested affordable housing and are concerned about the loss of the
existing affordable units at the church. The community has requested partial preservation of specific
character-defining structures; affordable housing units; artist work spaces; and a step down to the
interior residential neighborhood. The current plan does not include any of these requests and should
not move forward until these items are addressed with adequate stipulations.

Preserve Phoenix along with GAMA and GAAP are prepared to support a plan for housing that reflects
the unique place in which it is to be built. Please support this unified request to preserve the Sanctuary,
colonnade and bell tower in Zoning Application Z-61-22-7 by creating adequate stipulations that will
foster a better plan for the small and historic Triangle Neighborhood.



Sincerely,




Ashley Harder
Interim Executive Director, Preserve Phoenix


Preserve Phoenix • 734 W. Polk St., Phoenix, AZ 85007
www.PreservePHX.org
Page 553
From: Neal Haddad
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Sarah Stockham
Subject: CCVPC agenda item #6, Z-61-22-7, 9th Ave. & Fillmore
Date: Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:44:06 PM


Central City VPC members--

Please vote against the subject application as presented. The current plan that you
are reviewing does not consider the unique character of the area.

Citizens have drafted thoughtful recommendations that mesh with the area's unique
characteristics, and members of Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation have been sharing
ideas with the applicants to provide a workable solution.

Without viewing and considering the site in the context of the past three decades,
however, it is impossible to fully appreciate what visionaries and neighborhood
stalwarts have been working toward.

The community seeks many similar things that the developer wants; yet the current
plan is too thin in its considerations.

Consider:

Grand Avenue residents and merchants want more housing; they also seek
affordable housing
Grand Avenue residents and merchants want the church to be able to sell its
property and be made whole
Grand Avenue residents and merchants will support a plan that incorporates the
architecturally significant components of the church, including: the Sanctuary,
the colonnade and bell tower

The recommendations made by the residents and merchants group includes:

partial preservation of specific character-defining structures
affordable housing units
artist work spaces, and
a 'step-down' to the interior residential neighborhood

None of the above recommendations have been made in the current plan.

Grand Avenue is a gem that has been polished by the residents and members of
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation and others for the past three decades. It is an area
unique to our city. Will you recognize the value of this area, of this community and
these people who have nurtured this into a unique and special site?

Please, vote no on this project and ask the parties to keep working on it. Then, ask
the applicant to work directly with those who have been specifically responsible for
bringing along this unique and special community within our city.

Thanks for reading.

--



Page 554
Neal Haddad
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix

neal.haddad@gmail.com
602.684.3889




Page 555
I’d like to introduce myself,
My name is Benjamin Hall, and my wife and I have lived in this neighborhood for 13 years.
We not only have our home here but we have developed two AIA Honor Award winning multifamily properties in
the neighborhood in which we remain the owners and landlords of.


Now as community members in our newly reenergized neighborhood association meetings, the community has
just begun to scratch the surface of what the real impact of this new WU zoning would have on the fabric of the
neighborhood.
Specifically, the scale of this project. We essentially will be doubling the population of residents in this
neighborhood on a single parcel that almost occupies an entire city block.


Most of the added impact as outlined below will end up being a conversation with the city and the community in
future discussions. We hope that the voice of this development ownership will be harmony with the existing
Triangle Neighborhood community to strengthen our position to further beautify and protect this fragile corner of
the city.
The neighborhood at this stage has identified a few of the added impacts by this newly introduced WU zoning.
Examples being:
1. A need for neighborhood public trash cans on street corners, which means added trash service
throughout the community.
2. The amplification of existing street parking issues with the possible need for nighttime parking permits.
3. Added police presence / patrolling.
4. New vehicular design strategies like roundabouts and speed bumps to reduce the already high-speed cut
throughs from morning and evening commuters.
5. Additional street lighting for safer pedestrian night walking.
6. Added street crossings for safer pedestrian crossing out of the neighborhood. As we are surrounded on all
three sides by high traffic roads.


These are just a few examples:
We have been hopeful that a neighborly partnership would be formed between this developer and the current
community. This developer would be the largest and loudest single member of the community organization in the
future. We were optimistic it would be through this hearing process that that foundation would be built upon.
Because in the future the added impacts of this project only expedite the effects of what we honestly know is
coming, and that is a denser and larger rental community that will outnumber the home owners in this small
neighborhood.


Know to the specifics of this parcel itself. The community understands (and frankly has mixed feelings about) what
this new zoning would provide. But it’s been identified that it comes with new opportunities, that are not currently
allowed with current zoning. Like added height, provision for affordable housing (which is different than
“attainable housing”), closer setbacks to the street for the purpose of street activation with commercial and retails
shops on the ground floor. The promotion of true mixed use and live work opportunities. All great attributes that
the WU code zoning provides. All that would or could have verifiable positive outcome for the community and
surrounding public. But instead, the proposed plan from the developer appears to be cherry picking aspects of the




Page 556
new zoning code like: (high unit density, increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks) while turning its back to the
other parts mentioned prior. From what is currently understood the development is a 100% insular project with no
streetside public activated retail spaces. No opportunity for the community to patron the amenities spaces within.
Frankly it’s not a publicly accessible project at all, which seems counter to the spirit of the WU code itself. In fact, I
think this project might be a gated community in disguised.


Now understanding, that the ripple effect of a project of this scale in such a small neighborhood. Its mere presence
will be felt through surrounding neighborhoods as well like FQ Story, and Grand Ave. Ironically, this project has
galvanized members of all these neighborhoods under one objective. (Which frankly I think is low hanging fruit)
1. The preservation of the bell tower (which we had to bring to the developer’s attention is protected in the
existing setback that already govern.)
2. The preservation of the original double wythe constructed brick colonnade (again we have explained that the
cost savings of preserving the authentic construction and its structurally sound footings would yield them a
financial saving vs there proposal to reconstructing, in the exact same location a faux version of this historic
architecture feature.)
3. The preservation and reinvented use of the existing 7,000 sf sanctuary space located on the NW corner of the
parcel. Programed by developer (how they see fit) to be the community component / amenity that would be
accessible to the community and the greater City of Phoenix as outlined in the WU code objective.


When volunteering neighborhood design professional’s asked point blank to the developer. If a contiguous site
plan configuration, which preserves these three objectives while maintain the developers proforma objective
would be (in the form of the unit count, parking count, and maintaining their proposed height.) considered. The
developer’s direct response was:
“We have no intentions of proposing any new site plan configuration other than the one already presented.”
Shane- the developer


This unfortunately feels like we may not be working with a future community member that has the same long-
term interest as the community itself. Which is very disheartening and concerning.




Page 557
Page 558
Page 559
Page 560
Page 561
From: Marilyn Riggs
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: City Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 5:45:25 PM




I would to express my opinion on
agenda item number 14. I am opposed to the total demolition of
the Cherry Hill Church.

Marilyn Riggs
2010 N 15th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Sent from my iPhone




Page 562
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation
1301 Grand Avenue #8
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.391.4016



February 23, 2023

Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari, District 7
Phoenix City Hall
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


Re: MercyHill Development Z-61-22-7


Dear Councilwoman Ansari,

The Historic Grand Avenue preservation community appreciates the dialogue our
District 7 Office has facilitated between residents, business owners, non-profits and
the MercyHill Church and Trumont Group.

Community and preservation representatives have never asked MercyHill, nor the
developer, to preserve anything beyond the character defining brick bell tower,
colonnades and the sanctuary. For eighty years these features have defined this valley
landmark and are not dilapidated nor irreparable.

While leading preservation professionals may differ on the historic status of these
church features, we believe they are certainly historically significant due to the original
church design by Lescher and Mahoney, the leading architects in mid-twentieth
century Phoenix. The bell tower, colonnades and sanctuary could become a selling
point for the redevelopment, and tie this development into the earlier history of
Phoenix. We ask for a mere 7,000 sq. ft. out of 106,000 sq. ft. be adaptively reused to
honor the illustrious history of the church.

Those of us who have done the hard work over the last several decades deserve for
our voice to be given equal footing with the buyer and seller, because of the immediate
impact on nearby neighbors and the certain future impact on the preservation of the
entire district. Trumont Group has a minimal track record; we would hate to see a
significant building needlessly demolished due to lack of experience, the inability to
work outside the box, and a project that ultimately may not happen in its stated form.




Page 563
Therefore we are requesting these timely next steps:

1) Access be given to a historically-qualified structural engineer provided by
Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation to examine the church sanctuary’s condition;

2) The original brick bell tower and original brick colonnades be stipulated for
preservation in their current locations;

3) If adaptive reuse of the sanctuary is found to be feasible by the structural
engineer, that it be retained on the site until building permits are applied for by
Trumont Group and approved by the City of Phoenix.

Dozens of new owners and businesses have independently renovated and restored
vintage and historic structures in this unique downtown corridor for over 30 years,
creating a notable collection of vintage commercial building stock. Decades of
restoration have been accompanied by years of crime fighting through eradication of
drug houses, prostitution, petty crime, gun violence and blight.

Deterrence of a long list of other social ills including homelessness, addiction, gangs,
and disenfranchisement of area youth, was partially achieved through community
engagement programs, including a series of federally funded “Weed and Seed” grants.
A decade ago the EPA’s Greening America’s Capitals grant assisted with collective
visioning and additional neighborhood beautification projects.

The City of Phoenix has received an extraordinary gift through the efforts of many,
with the preservation of an area that is an authentic representation of early and
mid-20th century architecture along historic Route 60. Without proper foresight,
adequate protections, and dedicated stewards, our one-of-a-kind district will come to
resemble many other over-built Phoenix neighborhoods.

Thank you in advance for your timely attention to the above next steps.

Sincerely (signed electronically),


Beatrice Moore; Director Grand Avenue Arts & Preservation

Bob Graham; President Grand Avenue Members Assoc.

Ashley Harder; Interim Executive Director Preserve Phoenix

G.G. George; President Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition

Jim McPherson; President Arizona Preservation Foundation

Neal Haddad, Pres/B. Paul Barnes, VP; Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix



Page 564
January 27, 2023

Central City Village Planning Committee, City of Phoenix

RE: Z-61-22-7, SEC 9th Ave. & Fillmore St.
Mercy Hill Church Redevelopment



Dear Phoenix Planning Commissioners,

Greetings, I am writing again with a stance of a “NO”, or a continuance for Zoning Case
Z-61-22-7, known as the Mercy Hill Church Development.

The reason for my letter is 3-fold. One is to support the community that I have been part
of since 2013, two is to speak to high priority adjustments the project should consider, and last
to address the letter sent to this committee by Mr. Paul Johnson.

I know that often you do not receive many case letters, but it does not mean they do not
care. Not everyone has the time or ability to craft a response, even when it is so important.
Many have a combination of work, families, and businesses to run. Statement requests often
come on short notice, so I hope you highly consider the weight of the people who have taken
the time to write letters, the place they hold in the community, and how many people their voices
represent. I am the founder of Snood City: an art collective and the business owner. I alone
directly represent the voices of 15 people who work with me and are based on Grand Ave, with
500+ in my local network. It is the developers sole job, which has full dedication of time, money,
and resources to make sure their projects go through as they want. This is an advantage for
them to the fact that people are busy working to get by and oftentimes don’t even know when a
decision like this is on the docket.

Many agreeable compromises have been set forth by community members. Highly
notable is the rework of the site plan by architect Bob Graham (President of the Grand Ave
Members Assoc.) to preserve the sanctuary, bell tower and colonnades which does not take
away (it in fact adds) rentable sq. footage space. Also important to consider is the footprint of
the structure. It should be dynamic and integrate into the surrounding neighborhood better. The
building should not simply be a large box with towering walls that dwarfs existing homes. There
is a unique opportunity here for the type of rentable space offered, and the project should
seriously consider small commercial spaces at the ground level. There is a high demand for
downtown studio spaces, especially for artists, which would further support the draw of Grand
Avenue. Incorporating spaces of this nature will be a big win for the neighborhood. Overall, this
development needs a serious creative design rework. Take a trip to Grand Ave and look at the
personality. We do not want something that looks like every other development in every other
city, including this one. There is no originality with what has been presented by the developers
and we demand better.




Page 565
Finally to address the letter by Mr. Paul Johnson:

The stance of Mr. Johnson’s letter to this board, submitted on Jan 5, 2023 is
aggravating. To call a studio apartment rented at $1,200 “affordable” is laughable. It is
common sentiment that the local housing market is almost criminal. The standard is that
when applying to a rental you must have 3x rent for income. That means, someone has
to be making $50k per year to cover their expenses just to live in a studio apartment.
How is that affordable housing? Additionally, his comment with intention to “[...extend the
benefits that have come from downtown development, mostly to the East of 7th ave to
West of 7th Ave“] What are those benefits? Terrible parking and street maneuverability?
Bland architecture? Unused 400 sq ft. gym amenities? The notion that the Grand Ave
community wants anything like what has happened on Roosevelt Row is absurd. It puts
on full display the gap in understanding of the local ideology and what is desired. The
reason Grand Ave exists is despite these kinds of developers. Business owners support
high density projects that will bring more people to the area, but not at the cost of the
soul of the community. That is why Grand Ave is even attractive in the first place. It is
interesting and unique. When I look at Roosevelt Row, I don’t see “high quality” projects,
I see cookie cutter, so-called luxury highrises. Grand Ave has its own sense of place,
and we want to keep it that way.


I challenge this Board and the Mercy Hill developers to really question what their driving factor is
for this project. Meaningful communication and readjustment of what a “true urban project”
means for the Grand Avenue community is essential, and has not yet been achieved.




Thank you for your time,




Michelle Meyer
CEO, Snoodmen, LLC
snoodmen@gmail.com




Page 566



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing and
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-62-22-8 - Approximately 200 Feet
East of the Northeast Corner of 42nd Street and Edgemont Avenue (Ordinance G
-7098)

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, and consider adopting Rezoning
Application Z-62-22-8 to rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to allow multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 0.86 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: 4211 Thomas, LLC
Applicant: Sean J. Doyle, Tiffany & Boscoe, P.A.
Representative: Mark Tomecak

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
7, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 13-2.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 5-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed for a public hearing by a
community member and a petition for a three-quarter vote was submitted on Mar. 9,
2023. A three-quarter vote is required.

Location
Approximately 200 feet east of the northeast corner of 42nd Street and Edgemont
Avenue.
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 4222 E. Edgemont Ave. and a portion of 4215 and 4221 E. Thomas
Road.

Page 567

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




Page 568
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-62-22-8) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.86-acre site located approximately 200 feet

east of the northeast corner of 42nd Street and Edgemont Avenue in a portion of

Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

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

(Multifamily Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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




Page 569
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped February 3, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. All elevations shall include a minimum of two exterior accent materials, as
approved the Planning and Development Department. Examples include, but
are not limited to, materials such as brick, stone, colored textured concrete or
stucco.

3. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet.

4. The landscape setback along the east property line shall be planted with
minimum 2-inch caliper large evergreen trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer shall all apply for the On-
Street Parking Zones program in order to install no parking signs along
Edgemont Avenue between 42nd Street and 43rd Street.

6. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and
sidewalk along the north side of Edgemont Avenue, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. The landscape strip shall be planted
as follows:

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide a
minimum of 75% shade on adjacent sidewalks.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers with a maximum
mature height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live coverage at
maturity.

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

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




Page 570
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

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

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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




Page 571
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 572
EXHIBIT A

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP
TWO NORTH, RANGE FOUR EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-ONE
(31), MARKED BY A BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE STAMPED "CITY OF PHOENIX"
FROM WHICH THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-ONE
(31) BEARS SOUTH 90"00'00" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 2597.65 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 90"00'00" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31), FOR A DISTANCE OF 1432.01
FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 0"01'36" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 239.63 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89"45'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 45.73 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 01"29'10" WEST. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 117.80
FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31), A DISTANCE OF 75.59 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;

THENCE NORTH 90"00'00" EAST. A DISTANCE OFlS0.21 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 32.2 FEET OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31);

THENCE SOUTH 01"29'38" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 198.17
FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EDGEMONT AVENUE AS
CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY DEED RECORDED IN DOCKET 2301,
PAGE 540, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

THENCE SOUTH 89"43'58" WEST. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF
150.22 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 01"29'10" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 198.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.




Page 573
Page 574
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023

Camelback East Village Planning February 7, 2023
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 2, 2023

Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(0.86 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(0.86 acres)
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Location: Approximately 200 feet east of the northeast
corner of 42nd Street and Edgemont Avenue
Owner: 4211 Thomas, LLC
Applicant: Sean J. Doyle
Representative: Mark Tomecak
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity

General Plan Land Use
Mixed Use, Village Core
Map Designation

Street Map Edgemont
Local Street 25-foot north half street
Classification Avenue
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal will allow for multifamily residences that are compatible in scale with the
surrounding neighborhood. As stipulated, a landscape area along the east property line
will provide a buffer to the adjacent residences which is respectful of local conditions.




Page 575
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Protect residential
areas from concentrations of incompatible land uses that could change their
character or destabilize land values.
The request will allow for multifamily residences, which is compatible with the
surrounding townhomes and zoning district to the west of the site, in addition to the
single-family residences to the east and south.

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 landscape planting standard along the eastern perimeter of the site
and the detached sidewalk will provide thermal comfort and shade for residents and
provide a buffer to the surrounding land uses.


Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
44th Street Corridor Specific Plan – See Background Item No. 5.

Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 6.

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

Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 8.

Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 9.

Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Single-family residence R1-6
North Automobile parts retail C-2
South (across
Edgemont Single-family residences R1-6
Avenue)
East Single-family residences PAD-10
West Condominiums R-3




Page 576
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


R-3 – Multifamily Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Gross Acreage - 0.86 acres
Maximum Number of Units 13; 15 with bonus 8 (Met)
Maximum Dwelling Unit 15.23; 17.40 with bonus 9.30 (Met)
Density
(units/gross acre)
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% 28% (Met)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories, 30 feet for first 2 stories, 30 feet (Met, per
150 feet; 1 foot in 5 feet Stipulation No. 3)
increase to 48 feet high, 4-
story maximum

Minimum Building Setbacks Adjacent to a public street: Front (Edgemont Avenue):
20 feet 20 feet (Met)

Adjacent to property line: 15 North: 15 feet (Met)
feet East: 15 feet (Met)
West: 15 feet (Met)
Minimum Landscape Adjacent to a public street: Front (Edgemont Avenue):
Setbacks 20 feet 20 feet (Met)

Interior property lines: 5 feet North: 5 feet (Met)
East: 5 feet (Met)
West: 5 feet (Met)
Minimum Open Space 5% 7% (Met)
Minimum Parking 16 spaces 21 spaces (Met)
Requirements
12 reserved spaces 16 reserved (two-car
8 two-bedroom units 4 unreserved spaces garage)
5 unreserved
1.5 spaces per 1 and 2-
bedroom unit and
additional unreserved
parking at a rate of 0.5
spaces per 1 and 2-
bedroom unit




Page 577
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


*Variance or site plan modification required
Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 0.86-acres
located approximately 200 feet east of
the northeast corner of 42nd Street and
Edgemont Avenue from R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence District) to R-3
(Multifamily Residence District) to allow
multifamily residential.




Zoning Sketch Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning
and Development Department




2. The subject site is designated as Mixed
Use on the General Plan Land Use Map
and is within a Village Core. The request
for multifamily residential is consistent
with the Mixed Use designation. The
designation to the north and east is also
Mixed Use. The designation to the south
and west is Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
unit per acre.


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




EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The subject site currently contains a single-family residence. To the north of the
subject site is an automobile parts retail store, zoned C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial). To the west are condominiums zoned R-3. To the east are single-
family residences zoned PAD-10 (Planned Area Development) and to the south are
single-family residences zoned R1-6.

PROPOSAL




Page 578
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


4. The conceptual site plan, attached as an exhibit, depicts eight two-bedroom units
with private yards, with an open space area located towards the rear of the site.
Access is proposed from one driveway on Edgemont Avenue. Units will contain
two-car garages. Additional surface parking spaces are located towards the rear of
the site. To improve pedestrian safety and increase shade coverage along the
sidewalk, a detached sidewalk will also be provided along Edgemont Avenue with
minimum 3-inch caliper trees planted within the landscape strip between back of
curb and sidewalk, per Stipulation No. 6. Staff recommends general conformance to
the site plan to ensure the site develops as proposed. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 1.

The proposed building elevations, attached as an exhibit, depict two-story facades
that are 28 feet in height. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 2 to ensure that
building elevations contain a variety of exterior materials and Stipulation No. 3 to
limit the maximum height to 30 feet to ensure compatibility with the surrounding
built environment.

To screen the units from the adjacent single-family residences to the east, staff
recommends Stipulation No. 4 which requires minimum 2-inch caliper trees planted
along the east property line.

In coordination with the surrounding residents and to address concerns regarding
traffic and parking congestion, the applicant has agreed to apply for the On-Street
Parking Zone program in order to install no parking signs along Edgemont Avenue
from 42nd Street to 43rd Street. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.

PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITIATIVES




Page 579
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


5. 44th Street Corridor Specific Plan
Completed in 1991, the 44th Street
Corridor Specific Plan established a
framework to provide compatibility of new
development along 44th Street from
McDonald Drive to Sky Harbor
International Airport. The Land Use Plan
(Figure 5.2) shows a MU1 (Mixed Use I)
designation for the subject site. The MU1
designation calls for single-family
residential, multifamily residential (15+
dwelling units per acre), public/quasi-
public and hotel uses. The requested
zoning designation is consistent with the
MU1 designation.

44th Street Corridor Specific Plan, Source: City of
Phoenix Planning and Development Department




6. 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
allowing for the development of housing units on the subject site.

7. 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. Staff recommends the planting of large evergreen shade
trees within the landscape setback along the east property line and large shade
trees within the landscape area between the back of curb and sidewalk. These are
addressed in Stipulation No. 4 and 6.




Page 580
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


8. 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. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 6,
which requires a five-foot-wide detached sidewalk be constructed along the north
side of Edgemont Avenue.
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. Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes
standards to encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily,
commercial and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The applicant’s
materials indicated that each unit will have recycling receptacles.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
10. At the time this staff report was written, one letter of support has been received. In
addition, nine letters of opposition have been received. Concerns listed include
privacy, safety, density, traffic and congestion on Edgemont Avenue.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
11. Water Services Department
The City of Phoenix Water Services Department has noted the property has
existing water and sewer mains that are serving or can serve this development.
12. Fire Department
The City of Phoenix Fire Department has noted that the site and/or buildings shall
comply with the Phoenix Fire Code. Further, the Department commented that the
site will require a water supply for fire flow and the quantity and design of fire
hydrants is required to comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.
13. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation has requested that street improvements be constructed
with all required elements and to ADA requirements. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 7.

OTHER
14. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation 8.




Page 581
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


15. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 9.

16. 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 is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use.
2. The proposal will allow for additional housing options within the Camelback East
Village Core.

3. As stipulated, the proposal will provide increased shade along the perimeters of the
site and help reduce the urban heat island effect.

Stipulations

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped February 3, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. All elevations shall include a minimum of two exterior accent materials, as
approved the Planning and Development Department. Examples include, but
are not limited to, materials such as brick, stone, colored textured concrete or
stucco.

3. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet.

4. The landscape setback along the east property line shall be planted with
minimum 2-inch caliper large evergreen trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer shall all apply for the On-
Street Parking Zones program in order to install no parking signs along
Edgemont Avenue between 42nd Street and 43rd Street.




Page 582
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023



6. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and
sidewalk along the north side of Edgemont Avenue, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. The landscape strip shall be planted
as follows:

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide a
minimum of 75% shade on adjacent sidewalks.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers with a maximum
mature height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live coverage at
maturity.

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

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

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


Writer
Sarah Stockham
February 3, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch map
Aerial map
Site plan date stamped February 3, 2023
Elevations date stamped September 14, 2022




Page 583
Staff Report: Z-62-22-8
February 3, 2023


Correspondence (11 pages)




Page 584
THOMAS RD


C-2 P-2
R1-6 *
C-1 C-2
Z-24-17


C-1 *
42ND ST
R-3
EDGEMONT AVE PAD-10 P-2 M-R
Z-317-84
R1-6 *
Z-147-02

PUD*
WINDSOR AVE
P-1 Z-57-16

R1-6
PAD-15

I
Miles
Z-62-22 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

BETHANY HOME RD

0.035 0.0175 0 0.035
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 SR 51
THOMAS RD


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:
Bill Lally / Greg Loper
FROM:
R1-6 ( 0.86 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
10/20/2022
Z-62-22 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.86 Acres QS 14-37 G-10 TO: R-3 ( 0.86 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 4 5
R-3 12 15

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-62-22.mxd
Page 585
THOMAS RD


C-2 P-2
R1-6 *
C-1 C-2
Z-24-17


C-1 *
42ND ST
R-3
EDGEMONT AVE PAD-10 P-2 M-R
Z-317-84
R1-6 *
Z-147-02

PUD*
WINDSOR AVE
P-1 Z-57-16

R1-6
PAD-15

I
Miles
Z-62-22 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

BETHANY HOME RD

0.035 0.0175 0 0.035
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

16TH ST
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 SR 51
THOMAS RD


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:
Bill Lally / Greg Loper
FROM:
R1-6 ( 0.86 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
10/20/2022
Z-62-22 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.86 Acres QS 14-37 G-10 TO: R-3 ( 0.86 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 4 5
R-3 12 15

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-62-22.mxd
Page 586
Page 587

 E  E
D D
<13E1#E353!;E <13E1#E353!;E


 E   E
D D
<13E1#E511#E <13E1#E511$E




 
   E   E
D D
<13E1#E#*116E <13E1#E#*116E




 E  E
D D
#(/(9&E#*117E #)/)9&E#*117E

         
9*!E E 9+!E  E


 E  E
D D
<13E1#E353!
Page 588
 E  E
D D
<13E1#E511#E <13E1#E511$E




 E  E
D D
<13E1#E#*115E <13E1#E#*115E




 E
D
#)/)9&E#*115E

         
9,!E EE 9,!E EE


:?.(>>-E :'"">E
   :>E ":(%0E8"@("AE   E
E!:>E>'2.:E82      
4'2"0(BE8(C20E
:-"E 
 
   



From: Alexandra Goe
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Thoughts re: zoning case Z-62-22
Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 9:54:17 PM


Hi Sarah,

I am a resident in Edgemont Estates and have reviewed the proposal for rezoning the empty lot
in our area.

Please let me know if I should share this message with anyone else and/or write to the City of
Phoenix Planning and Development Department. I want to make sure that my concerns are
added to the case file.

While I appreciate wanting to add additional housing to the area, I do not support rezoning this
lot to R-3.

As a resident of this area, I would love to see this commercially zoned space used to support
small local businesses. Adding local businesses to the community helps strengthen the local
economy and add vibrancy, as well as pride, to the neighborhood. Adding 10 townhomes here
will not benefit the community or add value to the neighborhood.

If the lot is not used for commercial use, I believe it should remain zoned for R1-6. This will
help maintain privacy and safety for the existing neighbors.

Thank you for your time and assistance,

Alexandra




Page 589
From: Claude degracia
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: zoning Z-62-22
Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 5:46:02 PM




TO     SARAH STOCKHAM

CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE PLANER

RE: REZONING CASE NUMBER   Z-62-22

REQUEST TO CHANGE FROM C-2 AND R1-6 TO R-3

PHONE 602-261-8701




ATT. SARAH

AS PER CONVERSATION 7 OCT 2022 REGUARDING Z-62-22.

THE R1-6 ZONEING WAS ASSIGNED FOR A PUROPSE. A TEN
UNIT COMPLEX

IS TO MANY FOR THAT LOT. TEN UNITS EQUALS 20 AUTOS. AT
TIMES THERE MAY BE AUTOS PARKED ON EDGEMONT AVE., JUST
SOUTH OF THESE 10 UNITS.

THIS WILL CAUSE A LOT COJESTION AND DIFFICULTY FOR
RESIDENTS SOUTH OF THIS PROPRETY TO BACK OUT OF THEIR
DRIVEWAYS.

THE PROPOSED UNITS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY WILL
TAKE AWAY PRIVACY FOR EDGEMONT RESIDENTS AJECENT TO
SAID PROPERTY.

I OBJECT TO THE ZONING CHANGE IN CASE NUMBER Z-62-22




Page 590
Thank you

Claude A. deGracia   carjdeg2@yahoo.com 602-956-7528

Ronna J. deGracia





Page 591
From: Laurie C
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Property 4221 E Thomas
Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 11:50:39 AM




Hi Sarah,

My name is Laurie Cummings and I am a resident at 2826 N 43rd Street. I am writing you in regards to the property
development on Edgemont. I cannot attend the Zoom meeting so I am writing you in this matter. I am against this
build for several reasons. We were told that this would be single family homes which isn’t a problem. The problem I
have is that building two-story multi units brings more traffic, people, privacy issues, and view of our beautiful
scenic mountains. We are surrounded by tall buildings all around and this is not acceptable in a neighborhood of
homes. This two-story housing unit will invade privacy to our own residential area by over looking into our
backyards. On a daily basis we have multiple cars driving down our roads ( privately owned) therefore a multi-unit
would bring more vehicle congestion, parking problems and pedestrian traffic. Our area is private property and will
bring more traffic to our green areas for people walking dogs, etc.. Building a multi-property will bring renters,
lower property values and more crime to our neighborhood. Please take every measure to vote against this build and
bring back neighborhoods for our children to play in and enjoy our beautiful area and state. Your help is greatly
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Laurie Cummings
2826 N 43rd Street 85008
Phoenix, Az
Sent from my iPad




Page 592
From: DIANN IVERSON
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Rezoning request Z-62-22
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 3:29:11 PM



TO: Sarah Stockham, Camelback East Village Planner

RE: Rezoning Case Number Z-62-22
Request to change from C-2 and R1-6 to R-3

Sarah, This memo relates to a conversation you had with Claude DeGracia on October 7, 2022
regarding Z-62-22.

The R-1-6 zoning was assigned for a purpose. A ten-unit complex is too many for that lot. Ten
units allows for 20 automobiles and that does not include visitor parking.

Ten units will cause a lot of congestion and difficulty for residents south of this property to
back out of their driveways. The addition of town units at 42nd Street and Edgemont Avenue
have caused unnecessary traffic coming into Edgemont Estates and use of our common areas
for dog walkers.

In addition, the proposed two-level units on the east side of this property will take away
privacy for Edgemont Estates residents adjacent to said property.

As a homeowner in Edgemont Estates, I object to the zoning change in case number Z-62-22.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

DiAnn Iverson
2815 N 42nd Way
Phoenix, AZ 85008
dsiverson29@gmail.com




Page 593
From: Ellen Hemauer
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Application Z-62-22 (4221 E. Thomas Road)
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:50:39 AM
Importance: High



Good morning Sarah,

I would like to lend my voice in complete and utter opposition of the application to rezoning
the property at 4221 East Thomas from C-2 and R1-6 to R-3. That is way too many homes on
that lot and if you multiply 10 units with 2 vehicles (minimum) at least, there will be way too
many cars that will clog the one-way street on Edgemont. The residents east of this location
will be impeded in exiting Edgemont and the residents to the north of this lot will loose their
privacy. I know this will negatively impact the single story residences already there and have
been for years.

I strongly oppose and object to the Zoning Request for Application #Z-62-22.

Ellen Hemauer and James Archibald
2828 North 42nd Way, 85008
602-256-3189
ellen.hemauer@phoenix.gov




Page 594
From: Ellen Welch
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Case #Z-62-22
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 8:39:59 AM




To:Sarah Stockham
Camelback East Village Planner
Re: rezoning case #Z-62-22

Attn: Sarah
Regarding the R1-6 zoning assigned for a proposed 10-unit complex: as a homeowner in Edgemont Estates, I feel
that 10 units is far too many for that small lot. The number of cars would cause considerable congestion in this small
area. In addition, the proposed units would greatly affect the privacy for Edgemont residents adjacent.
I object to the zoning change in case #Z-62-22.   Thank you.
Respectfully,
Ellen Welch
Ellena.welch@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone




Page 595
From: Bill Sperry
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Zoning request change
Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 4:49:24 PM




Sarah this is to tell you that I object to the request to change the zoning on this project over on Edgemont it will lead
to too much car congestion and the lot cannot accommodate that many houses on that small lot it will destroy our
neighborhood which is very park like too many houses too many cars too much traffic congestion and we would
lose our privacy in our neighborhood so I object to the changing of the zoning to our three that’s not gonna work
thank you Bill spirit PS if you wanna call me of course we’ve talked 602-955-5626 at my address is 4239 E.
Edgemont Ave. in Phoenix 85008 thank you

Sent from my iPhone




Page 596
From: Joann Forte
To: gl@tblaw.com; Sarah Stockham; Edgemont Estates; Sharon Schmieder; Elizabeth Sugges
Subject: rezoning request case number Z-62-22L
Date: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:56:45 PM


As President of Edgemont Estates Homeowners Association I speak for all seventeen (17)
homeowners of our association.
We are very opposed to the rezoning of the properties specified in this application.
Our serious concerns are the proposed number of units (10), the type of unit (town-homes) the
height of the units (2 story at 30"), the inadequate number of parking spaces for ten 2-bedroom
townhomes (only 15), only proposed five (5) parking spaces for guests, and the too-narrow
set-back on the east side of the property which is behind four of our homes.
We are very concerned of the additional noise factor, the increase in traffic to Edgemont Ave.
which is a cul-de-sac and potentially a large increase in vehicles driving past our homes and
using the cul-de-sac to turn around.The proposed parking is not enough and there will be a
substantial increase in street parking in front of our homes.
Edgemont Estates HOA is NOT supporting this rezoning request.
Respectfully submitted,
Joann Forte Smithbaker
President, Edgemont Estates HOA




Page 597
From: Jim Borst
To: gl@tblaw.com
Cc: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Zoning Case Z-62-22
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 2:39:39 PM


Hi Greg,

I’m unable to attend tonight’s property owner meeting regarding the zoning change for 126-02-
046B, but I wanted to provide my support for this change. As a resident of more than 20 years
at 4133 E. Edgemont Avenue, I very much support the development plans for that property. The
similar development that occurred on the parcel just to the west of this (Edgemont 12) was a
positive change to the neighborhood and I had also supported that.

Thank you,
Jim Borst
602-628-3040




Page 598
From: Crystal DeVelis
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Z-62-22-8, 42nd St and Edgemont
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:54:34 PM


Please note my objection to this zoning change. The density increase in this neighborhood on
the east side of 42nd St. has already degraded the neighborhood. To add contiguous areas of
such density will materially affect the existing residents in a negative way. Property values
will decrease, the city will ultimately lose tax revenue. The existing zoning plan is quite
sufficient. There are no extenuating circumstances. This area and the proposed PAD areas
around it are not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the City.

-- Crystal DeVelis
4351 E. Whitton Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85018




Page 599
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-62-22-8

Date of VPC Meeting February 7, 2023
Request From R1-6
Request To R-3
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 200 feet east of the northeast corner of
42nd Street and Edgemont Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 13-2


VPC DISCUSSION:

Committee members Sharon Schmieder and Vice Chair Fischbach recused themselves
and committee member Jerryd Bayless left during this item, bringing quorum to 15.

Six members of the public registered to speak in opposition, and 26 members of the
public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak. Three members of the public
registered in support, not wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

Ms. Sarah Stockham, staff, provided an overview of the of the request including the
location of the request, existing and proposed zoning and districts and surrounding land
uses. Ms. Stockham displayed the site plan and elevations for the multifamily project
and shared the proposal has received one letter of support and twenty-two letters of
opposition to date. Ms. Stockham shared the staff findings and stated that staff
recommends approval subject to stipulations.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION:

Mr. William Lally, representing the applicant with Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., introduced
himself. Mr. Lally displayed aerial images, zoning maps, and the proposed site plan. Mr.
Lally shared the outreach efforts to surrounding property owners including meetings,
letters sent, and signs displayed. Mr. Lally shared revisions to the site plan and
stipulations after meeting with the community.


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

Page 600
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-62-22-8


QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Ms. Christina Eichelkraut inquired if the development is market rate housing. Mr. Lally
replied affirmatively.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Ms. Susan Traylor introduced herself as a long-time resident in opposition. Ms. Traylor
stated she was unaware of the changes made to the density. Ms. Traylor is concerned
with the ingress/egress onto Edgemont Avenue and stated a change in zoning may set
a precedent for the neighborhood and affect property values.

Ms. Patricia Powell introduced herself as neighbor in opposition. Ms. Powell stated she
was not made aware of the changes made by the developer, but she is still opposed to
the proposal. Ms. Powell expressed concern with the dumpster bin as all the residents
around the property have singular trash bins. Ms. Powell shared that zoning regulations
exist to protect from additional land uses and the proposal does not fit with the
neighborhood as she referenced city materials to protect existing land uses to end her
statement.

Mr. David Teel introduced himself as a property owner on Edgemont Avenue in
opposition. Mr. Teel echoed the sentiment of opposition for Ms. Traylor and Ms. Powell.
Mr. Teel expressed concern with the lowering of his property value.

Mr. Dave Jackson introduced himself as a long-time resident and the president of the
Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association in opposition. Mr. Jackson expressed
concerns with the density and shared that the property to the west (Edgemont 12) has
had a hard time selling, and the neighborhood would prefer a single-story, single-family
home instead.

Mr. Neal Haddad introduced himself as neighbor in opposition. Mr. Haddad stated there
has not been compromise on this project from the beginning. Mr. Haddad stated a lack
of communication between the developer and residents nearby as many residents were
not aware of changes made to the density. Mr. Haddad echoed Ms. Powell’s
disapproval of the quality of the units, dumpster, and zoning changes.

Mr. Jason Baker introduced himself as a neighbor in opposition. Mr. Baker stated the
neighborhood is quiet and on a dead-end street, the north part of the site belongs to the
commercial property and should not be included in the rezoning case, and this project
would largely impact the overall neighborhood negatively.

APPLICANT RESPONSE:

Mr. Lally replied that the proposal is not as tall or dense as the project to the west, they
will provide ample setbacks and guest parking, and will provide an enhanced frontage
that is compatible with the surrounding area.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 601
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-62-22-8


FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.

Ms. Christina Eichelkraut stated she supports housing and gentle density but is in
opposition to this proposal.

Mr. Barry Paceley stated the area is in need of housing, he appreciates the applicant
for lowering the number of units but is opposed.

MOTION:

Committee member Tom O’Malley motioned to recommend approval of Z-62-22-8 per
the staff recommendation. Committee member Dan Rush seconded the motion.

VOTE:

13-2; the motion to recommend approval of Z-62-22-8 passes with Committee Members
Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Beckerleg Thraen, Garcia, Grace, Jurayeva, Langmade,
Miller, O’Malley, Rush, Wilenchik, and Swart in favor; and Committee members
Eichelkraut and Paceley opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




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


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 2, 2023

ITEM NO: 13
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-62-22-8
Location: Approximately 200 feet east of the northeast corner of 42nd Street and
Edgemont Avenue
From: R1-6
To: R-3
Acreage: 0.86
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Applicant: Sean J. Doyle, Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.
Owner: 4211 Thomas, LLC
Representative: Mark Tomecak, Architect

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 2/7/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 13-2.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A.

Motion details: Commissioner Jaramillo made a MOTION to approve Z-62-22-8, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Jaramillo
Second: Boyd
Vote: 5-1 (Perez)
Absent: Gaynor, Busching, and Simon
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use.

2. The proposal will allow for additional housing options within the Camelback East Village
Core.

3. As stipulated, the proposal will provide increased shade along the perimeters of the site
and help reduce the urban heat island effect.




Page 603
Stipulations:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
February 3, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

2. All elevations shall include a minimum of two exterior accent materials, as approved
the Planning and Development Department. Examples include, but are not limited to,
materials such as brick, stone, colored textured concrete, or stucco.

3. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet.


4. The landscape setback along the east property line shall be planted with minimum 2-
inch caliper large evergreen trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer shall all apply for the On-Street
Parking Zones program in order to install no parking signs along Edgemont Avenue
between 42nd Street and 43rd Street.

6. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and minimum
5-foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk along the
north side of Edgemont Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The landscape strip shall be planted as follows:

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide a minimum
of 75% shade on adjacent sidewalks.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers with a maximum mature
height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live coverage at maturity.

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

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

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

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 604
ATTACHMENT E
127-13-090B 127-13-090A 127-13-092D 127-13-092H


THOMAS RD




126-02-036B


126-02-039G


126-01-094
126-02-046A


126-02-039B
126-02-036H



42ND ST
126-02-039H


126-02-101
126-02-090
126-02-100
126-02-091 126-02-072 126-02-073
126-02-080


126-02-102
126-02-092
126-02-074
126-02-071

126-01-090
126-02-079




43RD ST 126-02-084
126-02-083
126-02-046B




S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\Petitions\Z-62-22\Z-62-22.mxd
126-02-082
126-02-093
126-02-094 126-02-099 126-02-070 126-02-078
126-02-095 126-02-098 126-02-075



126-02-076 126-02-077
42ND WAY
126-02-096 126-02-097 126-02-069



EDGEMONT AVE


126-01-061

126-02-086 126-02-087 126-02-088 126-02-065
126-02-064
126-02-067 126-02-068
126-02-089


126-02-081
126-02-066




Legend
126-01-060 126-02-031 126-02-030 126-02-029 126-02-028 126-02-027 126-02-026 126-02-025 126-02-024
Zoning Petition Area
Proposed Amendment Area
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 16/38 = 42.11%
Lots/Tracts/Condos % Area = 1.18ac./4.98ac. = 23.69%
Signed Petition 3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
WINDSOR AVE

Petition Verification Map
for Z-62-22-8
I 0 100 200 Feet Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept.
Page 605
03/10/23
REVISED THREE QUARTER APPEAL
3/9/23 at 4:30 PM

CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ Z-62-22-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Approximately 200 opposition x applicant
feet east of the
northeast corner of
42nd Street and
Edgemont Avenue

APPEALED FROM: PC 3/2/2023 4217 East Edgemont Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85008
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 4/5/2023 Sharon Schmieder
HEARING 602-980-9480
Sharon@arizonahometeam.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

*Appeal & Request for the three fourths vote.

Petition pages 1-6 attached. Protesting the Commission’s decision on case as it is on
an interior street, not a main arterial street, landlocked, and in violation of the General
Plan.

*Note: Neighbors were not all able to speak as our time to speak did not start until
11:15 p.m. This is punitive to the property owners.

** The developer has been unwilling to work with the neighborhood. They did not do
the asbestos remediation when the house on the property was demolished.
Neighbors’ calls were not returned.

Further, when demolition was done, the developer put a hole in the wall of adjacent
neighbor. The developer was called and notified in person on 12/14/22. The wall has
not been fixed.
RECEIVED BY: Adam Stranieri RECEIVED ON: 3/9/2023

Alan Stephenson Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Paul M. Li
Racelle Escolar Village Planner
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
Diana Hernandez Applicant
David Urbinato Adam Stranieri (for PHO Appeals)




Page 606
Page 607
Page 608
Page 609
Page 610
Page 611
Page 612
Page 613
Page 614
ATTACHMENT F


LTR of SUPPORT Rcvd 3-1-2023



February 28, 2023

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC EMAIL: racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov

Rachelle Escolar
Planner 111
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Support for Z-62-22-8 (42nd Street and Edgemont Ave.)

Dear Ms. Escolar:

My company owns a property near the property subject to the above referenced rezoning. I followed
the recent approval of the Camelback East Village Planning Committee related to the rezoning of a
vacant lot near 42nd Place and Edgemont. I understand that Emery Lane Homes is planning to develop
new townhomes on the project. I reviewed Emery Lane’s website and they look to be delivering high
quality projects in Phoenix, and excited for their investment in the area.

I also understand that the developer made changes to their project including dropping the density,
limiting it to two stories and adding landscaping. I appreciate the developer’s willingness to work with
the neighbors.

I support this project and look forward to seeing new townhomes on this vacant lot.

Sincerely,


AJ Greathouse
2600 N. 44th Street
Phoenix 85008




Page 615
From: Jim Borst
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Gini Borst
Subject: 3/2/2023 6:00pm Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda item #13, Application #: Z-62-22-8
Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:29:52 AM


3/2/2023 6:00pm Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda item #13, Application #: Z-62-22-8
From: R1-6 To: R-3 Acreage: 0.86 Location: Approximately 200 feet east of the northeast corner
of 42nd Street and Edgemont Avenue Proposal: Multifamily residential Applicant: Sean J. Doyle,
Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. Owner: 4211 Thomas, LLC Representative: Mark Tomecak, Architect

We would like to submit comments for ourselves, James and Virginia Borst at 4133 E. Edgemont
Avenue. We live about 3 or 4 parcels from this property and we are very much in support of the
proposed development to build 8 units on this property. We have also spoken to several of our
other neighbors on Edgemont Avenue west of 42nd street and they are also in support of this
development. Anyone else from the neighborhood “association” does not speak on our behalf. The
association meetings are generally attended by about 7 to 9 residents and does not represent a
majority of the neighborhood.
The development directly to the west of this proposed parcel is a multi-family property that was
developed from single-level apartments into 12 individually owned units that are 2 and 3 stories tall,
called the “Edgemont 12”. The previous apartments on this parcel attracted low-income renters
with several problems that involved a lot of police activity with fighting in their common areas and
disturbances. The current development has attracted new individual owners and wonderful
neighbors. This proposed 8-unit development will provide a similar improvement. More neighbors
walking the neighborhood with their children and dogs will be another improvement to the overall
safety and community feel. The proposed 2-story units will also help to retain the views of
Camelback Mountain that the 3-story units at the Edgemont 12 currently have from their balconies.
The property to the east of this proposed development is a PUD with several patio-home style units
with a community pool. This new development will blend really well between these two properties.
There are 4 basement homes also on this street across from this parcel and 3 of those 4 residents
seem to strongly oppose this 8 unit development. We have lived in our home long enough to
remember when those basement homes were developed and a similar zoning change was required,
and we also supported that at the time. We appreciate the risk and investment that the developers
are making in our neighborhood to make this improvement.

Thank you,
Jim Borst
602-628-3040




Page 616
Rcvd 3/1/2023




Page 617
Racelle Escolar

From: Waseem Hamadeh
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 8:52 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: William E. Lally
Subject: Support for Z-62-22-8 - 42nd Street and Edgemont Ave.


Dear Ms. Escolar:

I own property in the area located at 2600 N. 44th Street, it’s a large office building and we are very familiar with our
tenant needs and the needs of the building. I reviewed the recently approval of this project within the Camelback East
Village, and I want to also lend my support to this case.

As an area property owner with significant investment in the area, I strongly support other property owner’s
investments in the area, especially when they are providing quality housing options for the area. The corner of Thomas
and 44th Street is a significant employment corridor, and there is a need for additional housing options nearby.

Additionally, the subject property is currently an underutilized vacant lot. We have seen an uptick in homelessness here
in the Phoenix area and have had to hire security patrols to try and mitigate the issues with homelessness, any vacant lot
can quickly become an attractive nuisance for the surrounding areas.

As an area landowner, we urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to support the case and support the local
property owners.


Thank you,




Waseem J. Hamadeh
Managing Member

HOH Investment Group

11811 N. Tatum Blvd. #1051
Phoenix, AZ 85028

C: 602‐327‐8169
HOHInvestmentGroup.com [hohinvestmentgroup.com]
whamadeh@HOHinvestmentgroup.com





Page 618
ATTACHMENT G

From: DIANN IVERSON
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Item #6 Case Z-62-22-8 (old Ladlow property)
Date: Saturday, February 4, 2023 4:33:58 PM



Edgemont Estates is NOT in favor of rezoning Z-62-22-8, the old Ladlow property.

Joann Forte-Smithbaker
HOA President
Edgemont Estates
4227 E Edgemont Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85008
edgemontestates@gmail.com




Page 619
From: Laurie
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Planning of developments Z-62-22-8 and Z-8-22-8
Date: Saturday, February 4, 2023 6:46:45 PM




Hello I am a resident in the area and I am letting you know since I am unable to attend the meeting that I am
OPPOSED to:

Z-62-22-8. I am OPPOSED to Z-8-22-8

Please email me if you have any questions.

Laurie Cummings
2826 N 43rd Street
Phoenix, Az 85008
Sent from my iPhone




Page 620
From: Mary Lungo
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Opposition to Zoning Case # Z-62-22-8
Date: Saturday, February 4, 2023 10:53:53 AM


Hello,

I am writing to submit my opposition to this change in Zoning for a 3/4 acre lot where a
developer is trying to build 12 units. I strongly oppose this zoning. Putting such a big amount
of units in a lot where a single home once stood is crazy and shows this developer does not
care about our neighborhood only how much money he can make, if allowed.

This does not fit in our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is beautiful and we will continue to
oppose to this type of development.

Regards,

Maria Lungo


Thanks, Mary L.




Page 621
From: Sue Heim
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Item #5 application case number : Item 5 Z-SP-8-22-8 Item #6 Application case number is Z-62-22-8
Date: Saturday, February 4, 2023 6:56:42 PM


To Whom It May Concern,

I, Sue A. Heim, live at 4027 E. Oak St., Phoenix, AZ 85018
I am opposed to Item 5 Case # Z-SP-8-22-8 and also
I am opposed to Item 6 Case # Z-62-22-8

Sincerely,
Sue A. Heim
4027 E. Oak St.
Phoenix, AZ 85018




Page 622
From: Claude degracia
To: Sarah Stockham
Subject: Camelback east village
Date: Sunday, February 5, 2023 12:06:14 PM



Hi Sarah
This is how my wife and I feel about items on the
meeting 7 FEB 2023


5 FEB. 2023

RE:

NOTICE OF PUBLICK MEETING CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
PLANNING

COMMITTEE

A.R.S. Section 38-431.02 Tuesday, February 7, 2023 6:00 pm

Items   Z-SP-8-22-8 opposed        Z-62-22-8 opposed




RE: Z-62-22-8   north east corner of 42nd ST. & Edgemont Ave.

When the builders sell their buildings & leave, we are stuck with the
increased traffic & parking problems forever. We oppose the change of
zoning to allow more buildings than the present zoning. There will be
no restrictions on Air B&B. Edgemont Ave. is already full with current
resident vehicles. We do not need this type of density. This is a single-
family residence area.



Claude & Ronna deGracia

Residing in Edgemont Estates

Page 623
4243 E. Edgemont Ave.

Phoenix, Arizona 85008

602-956-7528




Page 624
From: Ellen Hemauer
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Sarah Stockham
Subject: Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Date: Sunday, February 5, 2023 1:16:29 PM




Regarding Item #5, Case # Z-SP-8-22-8 OPPOSED
Regarding Item #6, Case # Z-62-22-8 OPPOSED

This community is made up of single family residences and to even have a builder consider erecting 10 to 15 high
rise units is just ludicrous. There are plenty of open spaces to do this, not dwarf our little community with homes
towering over our back yards.

NO MORE BUILDING THAN THE PRESENT ZONING ALLOWS. DO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING CODE!

My husband and I are 100% OPPOSED to Item #6 and Item #5.

Thank you for hearing our voice.

James Archibald
Ellen Hemauer
2828 North 42nd Way
Phoenix AZ 85008


Sent from my iPad




Page 625
From: Ellen Welch
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: proposal for zoning change
Date: Sunday, February 5, 2023 12:18:26 PM


In reference to Item #6 and case # Z-62-22-8:

I am a homeowner in Edgemont Estates, and I strongly oppose the proposed zoning change
from single family to high density multi-family for this property. Parking is already an issue
here. The proposal would create multiple problems.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ellen Welch




Page 626
From: raymond bremerkamp
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: opposition to Item #5 case # Z-SP-8-22-8 and opposition to item #6 case # Z-62-22-8
Date: Sunday, February 5, 2023 4:40:42 PM


item #5 case # Z-SP-8-22-8 I do not want the lot at 4220 E. McDowell Rd. to become a used
car lot.

item #6 case # Z-62-22-8 I do not want the zoning changed from single family residence at
4220 E. Edgemont Ave. Phoenix, AZ. 85008.

Raymond Edward Bremerkamp
4234 E Oak St, Phoenix, AZ 85008
480-600-2408
edbremerkamp@gmail.com




Page 627
From: Sharon Schmieder
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Opposition to Z-62-22-8
Date: Sunday, February 5, 2023 5:39:36 PM



To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is to voice my opposition to the proposed zoning change to the portion of 4221 E
Thomas that is zoned R1-6 and borders Edgemont to the south.

This proposed development is entirely to dense for the neighborhood. When the lot was
purchased, Emery Lane Homes marketed to the public on its website that it intended to build
luxury single family homes in accordance with the zoning. Some time mid 2022, they changed
directions and have been marketing 10 townhomes at this location on their site, a density for
which it has not been approved.

Not only does the density not conform to the neighborhood, but the proposed development
would be very similar to the development, Edgemont 12 to the west. This development was
not embraced by the neighborhood and the concerns that the neighborhood have
materialized. These homes are not desirable to the public and took an average of 609 days to
sell. This is an extraordinary amount of time during a good housing market. This time on
market exceeds the average days on market during the years that it took to sell by as much as
10x as long. Currently, there are two on the market and they are not selling. One is
approaching the average days on market and the other will soon be double the days on
market. This comparison is relevant as what is being proposed is even less attractive, more
dense, and comes with the first dumpster in our neighborhood!

Not withstanding that lack of appeal and conformity to the neighborhood, the additional
traffic, congestion, and parking is a burden placed on the surrounding neighbors that they
should not be subjected to. In addition, it was made clear in a comment by the developer's
representative, that we should not expect this development to be of the same quality which
we have become accustomed to with Emery Lane Single family homes. Even with this "lower
quality" proposed development, they have stated a proposed selling price of $800,000. This
would put the $/sq ft at $500/sq ft. The condos to the west have not been able to sell at
$325/sq ft.

It is reasonable that the neighbors adjacent to this proposed development should expect the
zoning to remain as it has been. This lot has always been occupied by one single family home
and a detached garage. While the zoning allows for greater density that just one home, it is a
misuse of the space to rezone this into something that has already proven to be problematic,
would be eggregious misuse of power and would diminish the value of the homes nearby and
being a taking from the existing homeowners.



Page 628
The developer has not been willing to consider any alternatives despite the fact that they
advertised single family homes in this location when they originally purchased.

Thank you,
Sharon Schmieder




Page 629
From: Lisa Rovinsky
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Sarah Stockham
Subject: Z-62-22-8 & z-sp-8-22-8 OPPOSED Do not approve: letter
Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 9:22:18 PM


In reference to A.R.S. Section 38-431.02 AND Z-62-22-8 & z-sp-8-22-8

I am writing for 3 homeowners at different properties.
Myself Lisa Rovinsky at 2812 N. 43rd street
Cinda Blackledge & Stephen Saridakis at 2818 N 43rd street

The 3 of us OPPOSE the revision of Zoning completely.
I am a fairly new wonder since May 2022.
Cinda and Stephen have owned their property since 1988.

There are so many issues that we are extremely concerned with:
Two way street blocked on both sides due to too many cars on the street and issues passing
each other while driving with cars parked out front of the lot.
The no restriction of AIR BNB is the highest concern.
The loss of privacy of our neighbors directly to the East of the lot. Patios and back doors and
windows will no longer have privacy due to the multilevel structure with windows looking
down upon their properties.
We live in the culdesac/dead end of Edgemont. I am on the corner at 2812, and will constantly
have to deal with people driving to the dead end and turning around all day and evening.
Our property values dropping due to this rezoning is a huge concern.

These are the major of many concerns.

Lisa Rovinsky
Cinda Blackledge
Stephen Saridakis




Page 630
From: Chuck Steele
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Camelback East Village planning committee meeting on February 7
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:09:55 PM




I would like to oppose two cases before the committee.
I oppose case number Z-SP-8-22-8
I also oppose case number Z-62-22-8
Thank you
Charles Steele
Aka Cheez




Page 631
From: David Teel
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Lindsay Teel
Subject: Camelback East Village Meeting 2/7/23: opposition to items 5 and 6
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:21:11 PM


We are writing to oppose item #5 and #6 scheduled to be voted on at tonight's 2/7/23 meeting.
The application case number for item #6 is Z-62-22-8.

We are also registered for the virtual meeting tonight but sending this written opposition
separately. My wife (Lindsay Teel/linzua@gmail.com) registered for the meeting.

We have owned the single-family residence located at 4213 E. Edgemont Ave, PHOENIX, AZ
85008, for about 15 years since it was newly constructed. It is a large semi-custom home with
a large lot. It is bordered on both sides by 3 similar homes. Each home has a fully finished
basement as well. They have enjoyed views of the mountains from the front yard for this
entire time.

The Rancho Ventura Neighborhood is compromised almost entirely of single-family homes
with large lots and long-time home owners. Most of the streets currently have multiple homes
in the process of being either completely remodeled or with new high-end single-family
construction. Comparable homes to ours in this neighborhood are now selling for 1.3M+.
Homes that need remodeling and that are not as modern as ours or will require new
plumbing/electric are still selling for 700K-1M.

This neighborhood is up and coming due to its proximity to the Arcadia area and the
availability of the homes sites comparable to that area.

Edgemont Ave itself contains the 4 modern construction homes referenced above and a long-
standing patio home community ending in a cul-d-sac. The patio community also consists
primarily of long-time home owners. The patio homes are large with large lots. They are all
single story homes. They are also detached and contain two car private garages.

A few years ago a rundown lot with some limited alterantive non-single family zoning was
sold and the new owners allowed to develope 12 multi-story townhomes. Luckily the location
of this property did not obstruct the mountain views. The builders sought to build them higher
and add more units but theis committee did not permit it. Those properties added to the
volume of vehicles on Edgemont considerably and to parking on the street. They also do not
conform to the neighborhood in any way.

Now, a new builder seeks to take a lot that is zoned for single-family homes and convert it to
high-density housing on a 3/4 acre lot. The builders originally planned to build 3 or 4 single
family homes; however, they appear to have now changed their mind and desire to build high-
density condo/apartment style homes that also exceed height requirements.

Not only does this not conform to the neighborhood but it will increase the density, traffic,
vehicle flow and block the mountain views the Edgemont single-family homes presently enjoy
and would keep under current zoning requirements. This construction would also decrease the
value of all surrounding single-family properties in the area at a time when the neighborhood
is being improved exponentially and becoming a sought after area to reside.



Page 632
The builders were aware of the zoning requirements at purchase. They were also operating
under an entirely different building plan involving single-family residences. This property is
also zoned differently then the adjacent property were the detached condos were permitted to
be built. However, the committee did limit the number of units and the height due to the exact
concerns expressed now. Neither Edgemont Ave nor Rancho Ventura can withstand any
additional multi-family housing.

We oppose any and all changes to the zoning. We oppose items 5 and 6 both of which
negatively impact Rancho Ventura and impact home values as well as the safety, wellbeing
and quality of life of the home owners in this neighborhood.

Sincerely,

David and Lindsay Teel
4213 E. Edgemont Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85008




Page 633
From: J & J Design Group
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: RE: Case Z-SP-8-22-8 and Z-62-22-8
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:35:38 AM


Hello,
I've learned about the possible zoning of the vacant lot on Mc Dowell to a used car lot. If
passed this would further change McDowell Road into a used car environment like Van Buren
Street. I'm not excited about this. It will not bring value to the area and the surrounding
neighborhoods.

I am strongly opposed to the high density multi family residence units at 4220 East Edgemont
avenue. This area should stay as a single family residence zoning only. We have some multi
family units next door and am opposed to having more. I'm a neighbor at 4114 East Edgemont
Avenue. This is a single family neighborhood. I am worried about the amount of traffic that
these units would incur. Already we get people speeding down our street to get to the units on
the other side of 42nd Street.

Thank you for your consideration.
Jen

--

Jennifer O'Dowd - Design Principal
Direct Line - 602-614-4548
www.jandjdesigngroup.com [jandjdesigngroup.com]




Page 634
From: denisedickman20@gmail.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Item 5 & 6 on agenda 2-7-2023
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 5:58:21 PM




I oppose the the items 5 & 6 on the agenda tonight m, 2-7-2023. I oppose the McDowell and Edgemont/Thomas
projects.

Denise Dickman
Vernon Avenue

Sent from my iPhone




Page 635
From: Crystal DeVelis
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-62-22-8, northeast corner of 42nd Street and Edgemont Avenue
Date: Sunday, February 26, 2023 7:37:21 AM


Dear Reader.

Please note my opposition to the above proposed zoning change, item 13 on the agenda for
March 2. Adding more dense housing in this area changes the character of the neighborhood
and will ultimately lead to reduction in property values. There is no good reason for making
this change from R1-6 to multifamily. Values of single-family homes in this area will be
negatively impacted by this change. Thank you.

-- Crystal DeVelis
4351 E. Whitton Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85018




Page 636
From: Jason Baker
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-62-22-8
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 3:39:27 PM




Planning Commission Members,

I hope that you will all read and consider my comments.

The current owners of the land on EDGEMONT AVE (located East of 42nd St & Edgemont) purchased the
property as a single family R1-6 zoned property. The previous owners, The Ladlow Family, disclosed to the new
owners that the neighborhood was UNANIMOUS in opposition for any development that would allow for higher
density. The proposed 8 townhouse units replacing a single family house is a DRASTIC alteration of the
neighborhood. The developer could easily build a couple nice homes in its current zoning and still maintain a quality
neighborhood, as they advertise their intentions as Emory Lane Homes.

I would hope that as community servants the Planning Commission would consider the impact to the surrounding
neighbors on this once quiet dead end street. Please do not let the greed of a developer override the long term
quality of a neighborhood.

I am certain if this was a case in your neighborhood you would not support it

Thank you
Jason Baker
4209 E Edgemont Ave
Phoenix AZ 85008




Page 637
From: Linda Bell
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Zoning case #2-62-22-8 Corner of Edgemont and 42nd Street Phoenix, AZ
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 5:36:35 PM


We live in the neighborhood and do not wish to see this developed into multi family
units. The current zoning should remain the same to keep the neighborhood as is.


Jim and Linda Bell
4048 E. Monte Vista Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85008




Page 638
Page 639
Page 640
Page 641
Page 642
Page 643
Page 644
Page 645
Page 646
Page 647
Page 648
Page 649
Page 650
Page 651
Page 652



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-LV-5-22
-7 - Approximately 550 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of State Route 202
and Dobbins Road (Resolution 22109)

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. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation
on 80.49 acres from Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 5 to 10
dwelling units per acre, and Mixed Use (Parks / Open Space-Publicly Owned /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use (Industrial /
Commerce/Business Park). This item is a companion case to Z-73-22-7 and must be
heard first, followed by Z-73-22-7.

Summary
Application: GPA-LV-5-22-7
Current Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (51.95 acres),
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre (23.89 acres), and Mixed Use (Parks / Open
Space-Publicly Owned / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre) (4.65 acres)
Proposed Plan Designation: Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce/Business Park)
Acreage: 80.49
Proposed Use: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a commerce park
development

Owner: The Smith Trust dated May 30, 2003 (Clyde David Smith & Marsha Lou Smith)
Applicant: IDM Companies
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard the case on
Jan. 9, 2023, for information only.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard the case on Feb. 13,
2023, and recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation,
by a vote of 7-1.


Page 653


Location
Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of State Route 202 and Dobbins
Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Addresses: 9400, 9500, 9700 and 9800 S. 63rd Ave.; 6363 W. Dobbins Road;
and 6400 W. Olney Ave.

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




Page 654
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-LV-5-22-7,
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 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-LV-5-22-7. The 80.49 acres

of property located approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of State

Route 202 and Dobbins Road is designated as Mixed Use (Industrial /

Commerce/Business Park).

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 655
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April 2023.



MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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



By:___________________________
___________________________



-2- Resolution

Page 656
REVIEWED BY:


______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




-3- Resolution



Page 657
ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
February 6, 2023

Application: GPA-LV-5-22-7
Owner: Clyde David Smith & Marsha Lou Smith
Applicant: IDM Companies dropping of documents
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Location: Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest
corner of State Route 202 and Dobbins Road
Acreage: 80.49 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(51.95 acres), Residential 5 to 10 dwelling
units per acre (23.89 acres), and Mixed Use
(Parks / Open Space-Publicly Owned /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre)
(4.65 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce/Business
Park)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a
commerce park development
Laveen Village Planning Committee February 13, 2023
Meeting Date:
Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The proposed Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce/Business Park) Land Use
Map designation provides for a land use mix that is consistent with the site’s
location within the Loop 202 Freeway corridor, where a technology corridor is
envisioned.

2) The proposed change coincides with rezoning proposal Z-73-22-7 that creates
a unified zoning framework through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
the entire site. The General Plan Amendment will provide for a General Plan
Land Use Map designation that is consistent with the proposed PUD.




Page 658
Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-5-22-7



BACKGROUND

The subject site is 80.49 gross acres
located approximately 550 feet west
of the southwest corner of State
Route 202 and Dobbins Road. The
entire site is used for agriculture. The
site is zoned S-1 (Approved C-1
PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
approved Neighborhood Retail,
Planned Community District), S-1
(Approved R-2 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, approved Multifamily
Residence District, Planned
Community District), and S-1
(Approved R1-8 PCD) (Ranch or
Farm Residence, approved Single-
Family Residence District, Planned
Community District).
Aerial Zoning Map
Source: Planning and Development
Department

This request proposes a minor amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to
allow commerce park and industrial uses. The proposal will modify the land use
designation from 51.95 acres of Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, 23.89
acres of Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre, and 4.65 acres of Mixed Use
(Parks/Open Space-Publicly Owned/Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre) to
80.49 acres of Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce/Business Park). The companion
rezoning case, Z-73-22-7, proposes a PUD to allow commerce park and industrial
uses.

SURROUNDING LAND USES

The subject site consists of agricultural land. The current General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the site is Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 5 to
10 dwelling units per acre, and Mixed Use (Parks/Open Space-Publicliy
Owned/Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre).

NORTH
North of the subject site is agricultural land designated Mixed Use (Industrial /
Commerce/Business Park)




Page 659
Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-5-22-7


SOUTH
South of the subject site, is agricultural land designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
units per acre and Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre.

EAST
East of the subject site, across the 63rd Avenue alignment, is agricultural land
designated Commercial (within the Laveen Village Core) and Mixed Use
(Commercial / Commerce/Business Park).

WEST
West of the subject site is agricultural land designated Mixed Use
(Industrial / Commerce/Business Park).

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE

• ENTREPRENEURS AND EMERGING ENTERPRISES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Encourage land uses that promote the growth of
entrepreneurs or new businesses in Phoenix in appropriate locations.

This General Plan Amendment request, with the companion rezoning request,
Z-73-22-7, will support a variety of commerical, commerce park and industrial
uses within close proximity to the Laveen Village Core and the Loop 202
corridor. The development will provide a place for a mix of business to operate
and grow within proximity to housing options.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE

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

The proposed land use mix of commerce and industrial is consistent with the
surrounding land uses established by previous rezoning cases. The
acompanying rezoning request provides a regulatory framework for a level of
devleopment intensity appropriate along the Loop 202 Freeway corridor.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS

• SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS, TRAFFIC; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate major
traffic-generating land uses on major streets in areas planned for such




Page 660
Staff Analysis
GPA-LV-5-22-7


uses, or near parkway and freeway access and transit centers or light rail
transit stations, and avoid use of local streets.

The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation will allow for traffic-
generating uses on this site to have easy access to an arterial street (Dobbins
Road) that will connect them to the Loop 202 Freeway, thus avoiding
residential local streets.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-LV-5-22-7 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and policies of the General Plan and will result in a land use designation that will
maximize the property’s location at the intersection of an arterial and collector street
(63rd Avenue), within close proximity to a freeway. Along with the companion
rezoning case, Z-73-22-7, the General Plan Amendment will allow for a compatible
mix of land uses that will provide employment and services for the Laveen community.

Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
February 6, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)




Page 661
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-5-22-7 ACRES: 80.49 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Laveen COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 12/23/2022
APPLICANT: IDM Companies
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ acre ( 51.95 +/- Acres)
Residential 5 to 10 du/ acre ( 23.89 +/- Acres)
Mixed Use (Parks / Open Space / 3.5 to 5
du/ac) ( 4.65 +/- Acres)
DOBBINS RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 5 to 10 du/ac w
v202
Commercial
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park / Business Park)
Mixed Use (Industrial /
Commerce/Business Park)
Mixed Use (Parks / Open Space /
3.5 to 5 du/ac)



63RD AVE

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce /
Business Park) ( 80.49 +/- Acres)


Proposed Change Area
DOBBINS RD
Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce/
Business Park)
w
v




63RD AVE

Page 662
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-LV-5-22-7 ACRES: 80.49 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Laveen COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 12/23/2022
APPLICANT: IDM Companies
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ acre ( 51.95 +/- Acres)
Residential 5 to 10 du/ acre ( 23.89 +/- Acres)
Mixed Use (Parks / Open Space / 3.5 to 5
du/ac) ( 4.65 +/- Acres)
DOBBINS RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
w
v202
Residential 5 to 10 du/acre
Commercial
Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park / Business Park)
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

! Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce /
Business Park)
! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !




Mixed Use (Parks / Open Space /
3.5 to 5 du/ac)



63RD AVE

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce /
Business Park) ( 80.49 +/- Acres)


DOBBINS RD
Proposed Change Area
! ! ! ! ! ! !
Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce /
v
w
! ! ! ! ! ! !




Business Park)
! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !




63RD AVE

Page 663
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-5-22-7
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting January 9, 2023
Request From Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre, and Mixed Use
(Parks/Open Space-Publicly Owned/Residential 3.5 to
dwelling units per acre)
Request To Mixed Use (Industrial/Commerce/Business Park)
Proposed Use Commerce park development
Location Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of
State Route 202 and Dobbins Road

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 8 (Z-75-22-8), Item No. 9 (GPA-LV-4-22-8), Item No. 10 (Z-72-22-8), Item No.
11 (GPA-LV-5-22-7), and Item No. 12 (Z-73-22-7) were heard together.

Four members of the public registered to speak on these item. Two of the members
donated their time.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION:

Jason Morris, representing the applicant with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself
and the three proposed projects by IDM. Mr. Morris stated that he will provide a
combined presentation for agenda items 8 though 12. Mr. Morris provided an overview
of IDM, describing the Columbia Tech Center, which is owned by IDM. Mr. Morris then
introduced Item No. 8 (Z-75-22-8), by the name of Curato, describing the site location,
changes made to the site plan and elevations, and the proposed site plan plus
elevations. Mr. Morris stated that 171 dwelling units are now proposed, with the primary
access along Elliot Road. Mr. Morris described the proposed building elevations,
renderings, site amenities, and housing plus retail trends in the area. Mr. Morris
concluded by listing various project benefits. Mr. Morris then introduced Item Nos. 9
(GPA-LV-4-22-8) and 10 (Z-72-22-8), by the name of Acero Laveen, describing the site
location, development units, site plans, renderings, landscape concepts, common
tenants in commerce parks, proposed buffering, traffic circulation, and referenced other
developments. Mr. Morris described site amenities proposed in Development Unit 2,
housing trends, and off-premise signage. Mr. Morris concluded by listing various project
benefits. Mr. Morris then introduced Item Nos. 11 (GPA-LV-5-22-7) and 12 (Z-73-22-7),
by the name of Envision Dobbins 202 West, describing the site location and how this

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 664
development furthers the Loop 202 technology corridor. Mr. Morris described the site
plan, project phases, renderings, common tenants in commerce parks, and provided an
example of a common distribution facility. Mr. Morris stated that there are performance
criteria for distribution facilities embedded in the proposed PUD Narrative. Mr. Morris
described the project benefits and concluded by summarizing the outreach conducted
on these cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Dan Penton stated that on case Z-75-22-8, staff was not in favor of the initial
multifamily zoning proposed there. Mr. Penton discussed multifamily projects in the area
and has concerns with the buildings proposed on case Z-72-22-8 due to the height,
scale, and lack of commercial uses. Mr. Penton stated that the frontage along 59th
Avenue that is proposed looks bad due to the building locations. Mr. Penton discussed
a bicycle way and improving connectivity on the site. Mr. Penton has concerns with the
proposed

Phil Hertel registered to speak on these items but was disconnected during public
comment portion.

APPLICANT RESPONSE:

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Carlos Ortega stated that too many projects are being presented at one time by the
applicant and feels overwhelmed. Mr. Ortega would like for applicants to present their
projects individually instead.

Rebecca Perrera would like to see refinement in the building elevations and became
confused by the numerous projects discussed at one time.

Chair Abegg would like to see more details on each case and is not supportive of
distribution facilities as primary uses permitted in sites. Chair Abegg would like to see a
stipulation reserving a grocery store location in the area.

Mr. Morris responded that he would gladly present these cases separately in the future.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix , Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 665
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-LV-5-22-7

Date of VPC Meeting February 13, 2023
Request From Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre, and Mixed Use
(Parks/Open Space-Publicly Owned/Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre)
Request To Mixed Use (Industrial/Commerce/Business Park)
Proposed Use Commerce park development
Location Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of
State Route 202 and Dobbins Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 7-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 7 (GPA-LV-5-22-7) and Item No. 8 (Z-73-22-7) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Eight members of the public registered to speak on these items. Six of the members
donated their time.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

Enrique Bojórquez, staff, provided an overview of the rezoning proposal, Z-73-22-7,
including the companion minor General Plan Amendment case GPA-LV-5-22-7,
describing the location of the requests, the existing and proposed zoning districts and
land use designations and the proposed use. Mr. Bojórquez reviewed the surrounding
zoning districts, land uses and described the two phases of the project. Mr. Bojórquez
listed several policy plans and described how these are furthered by this proposal. Mr.
Bojórquez stated that staff did not receive any letters from the public regarding these
requests. Mr. Bojórquez provided staff findings, followed by the staff recommendation
of approval on each case, and discussed the stipulations as presented in the staff
report for case Z-73-22-7.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION:

Ben Tate, representing the applicant with Withey Morris PLC., introduced himself and
the proposed project. Mr. Tate discussed the South Mountain Technology Corridor and

200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 666
the Columbia Tech Center which was developed by IDM, the same developer of this
project. Mr. Tate described the location of the site, existing land use designations and
zoning districts on the site and surrounding area. Mr. Tate discussed the proposed site
plan, which is divided into two phases. Mr. Tate discussed building renderings and
explained that this site is not intended to be used as a distribution facility, describing a
list of example tenants. Mr. Tate described the specs of a site used for manufacturing,
providing examples of similar buildings designed by the same architecture firm. Mr.
Tate discussed proposed changes to Stipulation No. 1.e, which would make large-scale
wholesale uses subject to additional conditions in the PUD Narrative. Mr. Tate
described an employment/market study and economic impacts to the area. Mr. Tate
provided a summary of the public outreach conducted and project benefits. Mr. Tate
concluded the presentation by requesting a recommendation of approval on each case.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:

Vice Chair Hurd stated that she met with the Community and Economic Development
(CED) Department and was informed that a user was attracted to this site by this
department. Ms. Hurd stated that CED is confident that other good users would be
attracted to the area and is supportive plus excited of Jeff Gordon’s work.

Chair Abegg appreciates the changes made to the Development Narrative for this
PUD.

Rebecca Perrera asked for clarification on the first phase project timeline.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Dan Penton feels assured knowing that this developer will not only develop the land
but will also own it into the future. Mr. Penton also appreciates the changes made to
the Development Narrative, adding that this and other sites in the general area will
create 6 million square feet of industrial space to meet the 4.1 million square feet
needed over the next 4 years. Mr. Penton stated that the original entitlement on the
land required certain features that he would like to be part of this project to pay homage
to the area.

APPLICANT RESPONSE:

Mr. Tate stated that Building A would be built first to accommodate a tenant that has
been identified. Mr. Tate added that an electrical substation is required in the area to
serve the growing demand.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.

MOTION (GPA-LV-5-22-7):

Vice Chair Hurd motioned to approve GPA-LV-5-22-7 per the staff recommendation.
JoAnne Jensen seconded the motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 667
VOTE (GPA-LV-5-22-7):

7-0; motion to recommend approval of GPA-LV-5-22-7 per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee Members Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen, Ortega, Perrera, Hurd and
Abegg in favor. Committee Member JoAnne Jensen dissented.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 668
ATTACHMENT D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 2, 2023

ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: 7
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-LV-5-22-7 (Companion Case Z-73-22-7)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of State Route 202
and Dobbins Road
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Mixed Use (Parks/Open
Space-Publicly Owned/Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre), and
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
To: Mixed Use (Industrial/ Commerce/Business Park)
Acreage: 80.49
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a commerce park development.
Applicant: IDM Companies
Owner: The Smith Trust dated May 30, 2003 (Clyde David Smith & Marsha Lou
Smith)
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 1/9/2023 Information only.
Laveen 2/13/2023 Approval. Vote: 7-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Laveen Planning Committee
recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve GPA-LV-5-22-7, per the
Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Mangum
Second: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Vote: 7-1 (Boyd)
Absent: Simon
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. The proposed Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce/Business Park) Land Use Map designation
provides for a land use mix that is consistent with the site’s location within the Loop 202
Freeway corridor, where a technology corridor is envisioned.

2. The proposed change coincides with rezoning proposal Z-73-22-7 that creates a unified
zoning framework through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the entire site. The General


Page 669
Plan Amendment will provide for a General Plan Land Use Map designation that is consistent
with the proposed PUD.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 670



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-73-22-7
(Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD) - Approximately 550 Feet West of the
Southwest Corner of State Route 202 and Dobbins Road (Ordinance G-7097)

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-73-22-
7 and rezone the site from S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Neighborhood Retail, Planned Community District), S-1 (Approved R-2
PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Multifamily Residence District, Planned
Community District), and S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Single-Family Residence District, Planned Community District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to allow commerce park development. This is a
companion case and must be heard following GPA-LV-5-22-7.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD) (4.79 acres), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD)
(16.00 acres), and S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) (59.70 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 80.49
Proposed Use: Commerce park development

Owner: The Smith Trust dated May 30, 2003 (Clyde David Smith & Marsha Lou Smith)
Applicant: IDM Companies
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on
Jan. 9, 2023, for information only.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard the case on Feb. 13,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification,
by a vote of 7-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on March 2, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommendation,
by a vote of 8-0.



Page 671

Location
Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of State Route 202 and Dobbins
Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Addresses: 9400, 9500, 9700 and 9800 S. 63rd Ave.; 6363 W. Dobbins Road;
and 6400 W. Olney Ave.

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




Page 672
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-73-22-7) FROM S-1 (APPROVED C-1 PCD)
(RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE, APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD
RETAIL, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT), S-1 (APPROVED
R-2 PCD) (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE, APPROVED
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT), AND S-1 (APPROVED R1-8 PCD) (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE, APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT) TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of an 80.49 acre property located approximately

550 feet west of the southwest corner of State Route 202 and Dobbins Road in a

portion of Section 7, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in

Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from 4.79 acres of “S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD)” (Ranch or

Farm Residence, Approved Neighborhood Retail, Planned Community District), 16.00

acres of “S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD)” (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Multifamily

Residence District, Planned Community District), and 59.70 acres of “S-1 (Approved




Page 673
R1-8 PCD)” (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Single-Family Residence District,

Planned Community District), to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with Development Narrative
date stamped January 24, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations.

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

b. Update the acreage throughout the Development Narrative to match with
that of the sketch map for rezoning case Z-73-22-7.

c. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Permitted Uses. Modify this section as
follows:

 Revise second bullet point to: “Food and spice manufacturing….”.

d. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Prohibited Uses. Remove “Publicly
operated buildings or properties” and “Public utility buildings and facilities
when necessary for serving the surrounding territory” from this list.

e. Pages 5 and 6, Performance Criteria for Distribution Uses. Modify this
section as follows:

Performance Criteria for Distribution and Large-Scale Wholesale*
uses:

For the Phase 1 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit
7 - Phasing Plan, distribution and large-scale wholesale uses are




Page 674
subject to the following criteria:

 Distribution and large-scale wholesale facilities as a primary
use shall not be permitted within 500 feet of the property line
along Dobbins Road including within Building A.

 No distribution or large-scale wholesale facilities are
permitted as a primary use within Building B for a time
period of 4 years from the date of rezoning approval.

For the Phase 2 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit
7 - Phasing Plan, distribution or large-scale wholesale uses are
subject to the following criteria:

 No distribution or large-scale wholesale facilities are
permitted as a primary use for a time period of 4 years from
the date of rezoning approval.

 After 4 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution
and large-scale wholesale uses may be permitted as a
primary use up to a maximum of 50% of the total building
area for the Phase 2 area.

 After 7 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution
and large-scale wholesale may be permitted as a primary
use.

*For the purposes of this PUD, “large-scale wholesale” is defined
as wholesale as a primary use for an individual user occupying
more than 50% of any individual building.

f. Page 7, Development Standards table, Maximum Building Height. Modify
this section as follows: Maximum 56 feet, except that one building within
the Phase I area may have a maximum height of 85 feet provided that it
meets the following standards:

 Does not exceed 15% of the total building area;

 Minimum building setback of 700 feet from the centerline of 63rd
Avenue; and

 Minimum building setback of 100 feet from all other property lines.

Roof mounted equipment shall be fully screened from the adjacent public
street line of sight.




Page 675
g. Page 8, Development Standards table, Electric Vehicle Parking. Modify
this section as follows: Minimum Percentage of Total Parking Spaces with
Level 2 EV Charging Station Installed: 5% of Required Parking. Minimum
Percentage of Total Parking Spaces to be EV-Capable for Level 2 EV
Charging Station: Minimum 15% of Required Parking.

h. Page 9, Development Standards table, Open Storage Standards. Modify
this section as follows: Any open use or storage area, where permitted,
shall be located no less than 100 feet from a perimeter (street) property
line. Any open use, including loading spaces or docking areas, shall be
fully screened with a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wall where visible from a
public street or residential district.

Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor perforation
may occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall not exceed
50% of the gate surface area.

i. Page 9, Landscape Standards, General section. Modify as follows: Where
utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

j. Page 11, Landscape Standards, Shade section. Modify last bullet point as
follows: Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

k. Page 13, Site Design/Development section, Third bullet point: Change last
sentence to “Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor
perforation may occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall
not exceed 50% of the gate surface area.”

l. Page 21, Comparative Development Standards Table. Update this table
as necessary to incorporate any changes to the development standards in
the Development Narrative.

2. A bus stop pad shall be constructed on eastbound Dobbins Road. Bus stop pad
shall be designed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
depth of 10 feet and located from 65th Avenue according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258.

3. The developer shall submit a Master Street Plan (MSP), as required by the
Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation Department, prior to preliminary site plan approval. The Master
Street Plan shall match dedication requirements and improvements as required




Page 676
by the surrounding approved Master Streets Plans (Dobbins Industrial Park
(MSP), Laveen Ranch (MSP) and Laveen Center MSP, and as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

4. The developer 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 Street Transportation Department. The TIS shall
include signal warrant analysis for 65th Avenue and Dobbins, 63rd Avenue and
Dobbins Road and 63rd Avenue and Olney. If the approved TIS determines that
a signal is warranted at any of these intersection, the developer shall be required
to fund 100% of the cost and construct the signal, if the TIS does not warrant the
signal, the developer shall be required contribute 25% of traffic signal cost in an
escrow account to the Street Transportation Department.

5. Existing irrigation facilities along public street are to be undergrounded and
relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights
and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require
additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat
and/or civil plan review approval.

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. 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.

8. 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.

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

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




Page 677
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of April, 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 678
EXHIBIT A

A portion of land being situated within the Northwest quarter of Section 7, Township 1
South, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona,
being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at a found 3 inch brass cap in hand hole, down 0.5 feet, Stamped 1/4 S6
S7 2020 RLS 54404, accepted as the North quarter corner of said Section 7, from which
a found brass cap, stamped RLS 15919, accepted as the Northwest corner thereof
bears South 89°47’10” West, 2488.78 feet;

Thence South 00°22'32" West, 2643.39 feet along the north-south mid-section line of
said Section 7 to a found rebar with cap RLS 36070, accepted as the Center quarter
corner of said Section 7;

Thence South 89°59'52" West, 1323.68 feet along the east-west mid-section line of said
Section 7 to the intersection with the east line of the property described in Special
Warranty Deed recorded in Document No, 2021-1343433, Records of Maricopa County,
Arizona;

Thence along said east line, North 00°26'37" East, 2638.53 feet to the north line of said
Northwest quarter;

Thence North 89°47'10" East, 1320.59 feet along said north line to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.

The above described parcel contains a computed area of 3,491,566 sq. ft. or (80.1553
gross 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 679
Page 680
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-73-22-7
(Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD)
February 10, 2023

Laveen Village Planning Committee February 13, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 2, 2023

Request From: S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved Neighborhood Retail,
Planned Community District) (4.79 acres),
S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved Multifamily
Residence District, Planned Community
District) (16.00 acres), and S-1 (Approved
R1-8 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Single-Family Residence District,
Planned Community District) (59.70 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (80.49
acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Unit Development to allow
commerce park development
Location: Approximately 550 feet west of the
southwest corner of State Route 202 and
Dobbins Road
Owner: The Smith Trust dated May 30, 2003
Applicant: IDM Companies
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, Residential 5 to 10
dwelling units per acre, and Mixed Use
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
(Parks / Open Space-Publicly Owned /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre).




Page 681
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023


Pending (GPA-LV-5-22-7): Mixed Use
(Industrial / Commerce/Business Park)



Dobbins Road Arterial 33-foot south half street

63rd Avenue Collector East half street not dedicated
Street Map
Classification West half street not
65th Avenue Local
dedicated

Olney Avenue Local 25-foot south half street


CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CORE, CENTERS AND
CORRIDORS; CODES PRINCIPLE: Encourage land uses that promote the growth
of entrepreneurs or new businesses in Phoenix in appropriate locations.
The proposed PUD will add employment opportunities within the Laveen Village and in
close proximity to the Laveen Village Core.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed will allow for light industrial, office, manufacturing, and other
employment-generating land uses in a location that is appropriate due to its proximity
to the Loop 202 Freeway and similar uses in the surrounding area.


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

The PUD Narrative incorporates enhanced landscaping and shade standards
throughout the site that will help to provide shade for pedestrians and mitigate the
urban heat island effect by covering hard surfaces thus cooling the micro-climate
around the vicinity.




Page 682
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Laveen Southwest Growth Study: Background Item No. 6.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 7.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background 8.

Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 9.

Monarch Butterfly: Background Item No. 10.

Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 11.


Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD)
On Site Vacant land S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD)
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD)
North (across
Vacant land, agriculture PUD
Dobbins Road)
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD and R-
South Vacant land, agriculture
2 PCD)
East Vacant land, agriculture S-1 (Approved C-2 or CP/GCP)
West Vacant land, agriculture PUD

Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone approximately 80.49 acres located approximately 550
feet west of the southwest corner of State Route 202 and Dobbins Road from S-
1 (Approved C-1 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved Neighborhood
Retail, Planned Community District), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Approved Multifamily Residence District, Planned Community
District), and S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Approved
Single-Family Residence District, Planned Community District) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) to allow for a commerce park development. The subject site
is currently used for agriculture. Staff recommends the addition of Stipulation
No. 1.b to update the acreage within the PUD Narrative to reflect the acreage
calculated by the City.




Page 683
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The proposed PUD will support
new commerce park and industrial
uses on the site, within proximity to
the Loop 202 Freeway and along
an arterial street (Dobbins Road).
The property to the north (across
Dobbins Road) and west, is zoned
PUD and allows similar uses
proposed in the Development
Narrative for this case. The
property to the east is currently
vacant and is zoned S-1 (Approved
C-2 or CP/GCP) (Ranch or Farm Existing Zoning Aerial Map
Residence, Approved Intermediate Source: Planning and Development Depatment
Commercial or Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park). To
the south is agricultural land zoned
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD and R-2
PCD) (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Approved Single-Family Residence
District, Planned Community
District and Multifamily Residence
District, Planned Community
District).

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The subject site has numerous General Plan Land Use Map designations. The
majority of the site is designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
while the balance of the site is designated Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per
acre and Mixed Use (Parks / Open Space-Publicly Owned and Residential 3.5 to
5 dwelling units per acre). To the east, the designation is Commercial and Mixed
Use (Commercial / Commerce/Business Park). To the south, the designation is
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units
per acre. Furthermore, to the north and west of the subject site the designation is
Mixed Use (Industrial / Commerce/Business Park).

A concurrent minor General Plan Land Use Map amendment case, GPA-LV-5-
22-7, is proposed to change the land use map designation to Mixed Use
(Industrial / Commerce/Business Park). The requested PUD zoning is consistent
with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Mixed Use
(Industrial / Commerce/Business Park).




Page 684
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023




General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department



PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district, which allows an
application to propose uses, development standards and design guidelines for a
site. One of the goals of this process is to allow the applicant to develop
standards that respond to the surrounding environment more so than
conventional zoning districts allow. The end result is property rezoned with
standards crafted specifically for the site. Where the PUD narrative is silent on a
requirement, the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.

5. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described
in the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped January 24, 2023.
The proposed standards were designed to allow industrial and commerce park
uses that offer the flexibility to develop uses that would generate employment
within the Laveen Village.

List of Uses
The Development Narrative proposes several permitted uses including those
listed in the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) and CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park) zoning districts. Additionally, manufacturing or
assembly of finished products such as food and spices are also proposed under
the permitted uses intended for this site.

The Development Narrative also proposed restricting certain uses that are
inconsistent with the vision for the site such as multifamily residential, non-profit
dispensary, tobacco-oriented retailer, motels, hotels and pet care facilities.

Staff recommends Stipulations Nos. 1.c through 1.e to reinforce the types of
uses that are permitted within the PUD and update the language for clarity.

Page 685
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023


Conceptual Development Plan
The proposed development plan proposes six large buildings on the site,
oriented east to west. The proposed buildings will be built in groups of two where
the loading and unloading docks would be located centrally between two
buildings. As a result, the loading of docks would have limited visibility along the
adjacent roads. Enhanced landscaping is proposed along all four sides of the
proposed development to further limit the visibility of the loading docks. The
proposed development will have access to all adjacent public streets, both for
customers and employees.

Staff recommends Stipulation Nos. 1.f and 1.h though 1.j to further clarify the
development standards within the proposed PUD including height, utility
conflicts, and fencing.

Development Standards
The PUD development narrative proposes development standards based on the
CP/GCP Zoning District. However, some standards vary from the CP/GCP
standards in relation to building height, setbacks, and open space.

Minimum Building Setbacks From Property Line
North (Dobbins Road) 50 feet
South (Olney Avenue) 30 feet
East (63rd Avenue alignment) 40 feet
West (65th Avenue alignment) 30 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North (Dobbins Road) 35 feet
South (Olney Avenue) 20 feet
East (63rd Avenue alignment) 35 feet
West (65th Avenue alignment) 20 feet
Maximum Building Height Maximum 56 feet, one building in
Phase I may have a maximum height
of 85 feet if it doesn’t take up more
than 15% of the building area, is
located 700 feet from the centerline of
63rd Avenue and Dobbins Road and
has a minimum building setback of
100 feet from all other property lines.
Maximum Lot Coverage 50% per individual parcels
Open Space & Amenity Standards 8% exclusive of landscape setbacks,
and two employee amenity areas with
a size of 250 square feet.

The proposed lot coverage of 50% is consistent with the standards in CP/GCP
zoning district. The proposed building and landscape setbacks exceed the
standards in the CP/GCP zoning district.


Page 686
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

Staff recommends Stipulation No. 1.l to update the comparative table to reflect
the previous stipulations.

Landscape Standards
The PUD proposes enhanced landscape setbacks along all street frontages,
especially along Dobbins Road and 63rd Avenue. These areas will incorporate a
mixture of two-inch caliper and three-inch caliper trees. The landscaping will
provide for a pedestrian-friendly environment with 75 percent shade on all public
sidewalks, exceeding the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In
addition to the trees, the developer shall install a minimum of five, five-gallon
drought-tolerant shrubs per tree.




Conceptual Landscape Plan
Source: Deutsch Architecture Group


Parking Standards
The PUD proposes to comply with the Zoning Ordinance minimum parking
standards per Section 702. The PUD Development Narrative also includes
standards for different levels of EV parking spaces including the number of
required parking station and capable parking station. Staff recommends the
addition of Stipulation No. 1.g to further reinforce the EV parking standards
within the PUD.

Design Guidelines
The Development Narrative includes design standards that enhance the frontage
of the proposed buildings. All building facades facing a public street will have
enhanced architectural features such as three building materials and/or colors
and shall contain building offsets and recesses. Furthermore, a minimum of two
historically appropriate building material such as river run stone, field stone,
common brick, galvanized panels, and painted steel shall be incorporated into
the facades, screen walls, and other site features.

Fences/Walls
All fences and walls will adhere to the Zoning Ordinance requirements per
Section 703, in adherence with the development standards in the Narrative. The
proposed narrative will also require wrought iron, tubular stee, or a similar
material when fences are located 75 feet from a public street.


Page 687
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

Shade
The Development Narrative requires a minimum of 75 percent shade cover be
provided over public sidewalks. The required shade standards along public
sidewalks exceed the Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Phasing
The proposed development will be constructed in two phases. Phase I will be
located to the north and will not allow distribution facilities as a primary use
within 500 feet of the property line along Dobbins Road including within Building
A. Phase II of the proposed development is located on the southern half of site.
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 1.e to further reinforce the phasing plan for
distribution uses within the PUD.




Phasing Plan
Source: Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD Narrative


Infrastructure
The development shall comply with the City of Phoenix standards pertaining to
infrastructure.

Comparative Zoning Standards
The Development Narrative incorporates standards that meet or exceed those
required in the CP/GCP zoning district, as indicated in the Comparative
Standards Table.




Page 688
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND INITIATIVES

6. Laveen Southwest Growth Study
The site is located within the
boundaries of the Laveen Southwest
Growth Study, which was developed in
1997 to analyze the existing conditions
of the Laveen Village and provide a
land use and design planning
framework to help shale the growth
that Laveen was starting to experience,
while accounting for newly annexed
farmland as well as the future
development of the South Mountain
Freeway Loop, which has since been
completed. This plan designates the
project site as 2 to 5 dwelling units per
acre and 5 to 10 dwelling units per
acre. Although not consistent with the
designation, recent land use trends in Laveen Southwest Growth Study Land Use Map
the area, including the development of Source: Planning and Development Department
the Loop 202 Freeway, point to a land
use mix that is primarily employment-
focused. This development would be
consistent with this trend.

The Laveen Southwest Growth Study also outlines specific design policies and
standards for various types of development that will enhance Laveen’s built
environment wile remaining respectful of its agricultural heritage. The study
encourages all new development to use durable, high quality building materials
and to provide enhanced building design that will contribute to the character of
the area. The proposed Development Narrative will require a variety of building
materials on future buildings within this site and also proposes various amenities
along the Dobbins Road frontage to active the frontage across the Village Core.

7. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, and connected transportation system to include all modes,
such as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. Detached sidewalks will be
provided along street frontages to promote a safe pedestrian atmosphere. The
Development Narrative requires that pedestrian pathways will visually contrast
the drive aisles.

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-

Page 689
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
Destinations. The Development Narrative requires one bicycle space per 25
vehicular parking spaces with a maximum of 10 spaces per building.
Furthermore, the proposed bicycle parking shall be placed 30 inches from a wall
or obstruction and located within 50 feet from a building entry point.

9. 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 Development Narrative requires a
minimum of 75% shade on all adjacent public sidewalks, in addition to larger tree
sizes. These standards exceeds the minimum requirements and will ensure a
comfortable pedestrian experience.

10. Monarch Butterfly
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's
Mayor's Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support
the monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is
a major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of
milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers,
but they breed only where milkweeds are found. To support the monarch
butterfly population, the PUD narrative addresses the planting of milkweed
shrubs, or other native nectar plant species, on the subject site.

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 PUD narrative promotes trash and recycling
receptacles on site.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
12. As of the writing of this report, staff did not receive any letters in opposition from
the public on this rezoning case.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
13. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the International Fire Code
with Phoenix Amendments. Further, the Department commented that water
supply is unknown at this site and noted that fire flow requirements may present
a challenge for this site.

14. The Public Transit Department has indicated that the developer shall construct a
bus stop pad along Dobbins Road. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 2.

Page 690
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023


15. The Street Transportation Department has indicated that the developer will be
required to underground existing electrical utility within the public right-of-way as
well as all irrigation facilities and require all street improvement be made to City
and ADA standards. Furthermore, the Street Transportation Department is
requiring that the developer submit a Master Street Plan and a Traffic Impact
Study for the proposed development. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3
through 6.

OTHER
16. 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. These are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 7 through 9.

17. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in Value
of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by the rezoning
application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require the form be
completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 10.

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

Findings
1. The proposed development is compatible with the existing land use pattern in
the area and is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use (Industrial/ Commerce/Business Park).

2. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result in a
more walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment. The development
will provide increased shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island
effect.

3. The proposal will provide additional employment options and commercial
services within the Loop 202 Freeway corridor.



Page 691
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with Development Narrative
date stamped January 24, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations.

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

b. Update the acreage throughout the Development Narrative to match with
that of the sketch map for rezoning case Z-73-22-7.

c. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Permitted Uses. Modify this section as
follows:

• Revise second bullet point to: “Food and spice manufacturing….”.

d. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Prohibited Uses. Remove “Publicly
operated buildings or properties” and “Public utility buildings and facilities
when necessary for serving the surrounding territory” from this list.

e. Pages 5 and 6, Performance Criteria for Distribution Uses. Modify this
section as follows:

Performance Criteria for Distribution Uses:

For the Phase 1 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit
7 - Phasing Plan, distribution uses are subject to the following
criteria:
• Distribution facilities as a primary use shall not be permitted
within 500 feet of the property line along Dobbins Road
including within Building A.
• No distribution facilities are permitted as a primary use
within Building B for a time period of 4 years from the date of
rezoning approval.

For the Phase 2 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit
7 - Phasing Plan, distribution uses are subject to the following
criteria:
• No distribution facilities are permitted as a primary use for a
time period of 4 years from the date of rezoning approval.
• After 4 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution
uses may be permitted as a primary use up to a maximum of
50% of the total building area for the Phase 2 area.
• After 7 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution
may be permitted as a primary use.

Page 692
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023


f. Page 7, Development Standards table, Maximum Building Height. Modify
this section as follows: Maximum 56 feet, except that one building within
the Phase I area may have a maximum height of 85 feet provided that it
meets the following standards:

• Does not exceed 15% of the total building area;
• Minimum building setback of 700 feet from the centerline of 63rd
Avenue; and
• Minimum building setback of 100 feet from all other property lines.

Roof mounted equipment shall be fully screened from the adjacent public
street line of sight.

g. Page 8, Development Standards table, Electric Vehicle Parking. Modify
this section as follows: Minimum Percentage of Total Parking Spaces with
Level 2 EV Charging Station Installed: 5% of Required Parking. Minimum
Percentage of Total Parking Spaces to be EV-Capable for Level 2 EV
Charging Station: Minimum 15% of Required Parking.

h. Page 9, Development Standards table, Open Storage Standards. Modify
this section as follows: Any open use or storage area, where permitted,
shall be located no less than 100 feet from a perimeter (street) property
line. Any open use, including loading spaces or docking areas, shall be
fully screened with a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wall where visible from a
public street or residential district.

Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor perforation
may occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall not exceed
50% of the gate surface area.

i. Page 9, Landscape Standards, General section. Modify as follows: Where
utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

j. Page 11, Landscape Standards, Shade section. Modify last bullet point as
follows: Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

k. age 13, Site Design/Development section, Third bullet point: Change last
sentence to “Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor
perforation may occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall
not exceed 50% of the gate surface area.”

l. Page 21, Comparative Development Standards Table. Update this table
as necessary to incorporate any changes to the development standards in
Page 693
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

the Development Narrative.

2. A bus stop pad shall be constructed on eastbound Dobbins Road. Bus stop pad
shall be designed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
depth of 10 feet and located from 65th Avenue according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258.

3. The developer shall submit a Master Street Plan (MSP), as required by the
Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation Department, prior to preliminary site plan approval. The Master
Street Plan shall match dedication requirements and improvements as required
by the surrounding approved Master Streets Plans (Dobbins Industrial Park
(MSP), Laveen Ranch (MSP) and Laveen Center MSP, and as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

4. The developer 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 Street Transportation Department. The TIS shall
include signal warrant analysis for 65th Avenue and Dobbins, 63rd Avenue and
Dobbins Road and 63rd Avenue and Olney. If the approved TIS determines that
a signal is warranted at any of these intersection, the developer shall be required
to fund 100% of the cost and construct the signal, if the TIS does not warrant the
signal, the developer shall be required contribute 25% of traffic signal cost in an
escrow account to the Street Transportation Department.

5. Existing irrigation facilities along public street are to be undergrounded and
relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights
and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require
additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat
and/or civil plan review approval.

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. 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.

8. 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 694
Staff Report: Z-73-22-7
February 10, 2023

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

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

Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
February 10, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Envison Dobbins 202 West PUD Narrative date stamped January 24, 2023




Page 695
63RD AVE ALIGNMENT
59TH AVE
C-2 *
HGT/WVR
C-2 H-R DNS/WVR
Z-16-09 Z-41-21

C-2/CP-GCP SP *
R-2 PUD * C-2 H-R SP *
Z-SP-4-09

R1-6 PCD
Z-60-16 PCD Z-1-21
Z-SP-4-09
S-1
A
A
Z
Z-60-16
DOBBINS RD
C-2/CP-GCP
C-1 PCD * Z-79-01
Z-180-04 S-1
ANX 271
Z-100-02

R-2 PCD *
Z-180-04
S-1
w
v


R1-8
S-1
GILA PCD *
Z-180-04
Z-28-03




R-3A
RIVER PCD *
Z-31-04
C-2/CP-GCP
Z-79-01 OLNEY AVE ALIGNMENT
INDIAN C-2/CP-GCP
Z-79-01 R1-10*
R-2 PCD * ANX 271
Z-100-02
RESERVATION Z-180-04 Z-27-19




I
BROADWAY RD
Z-73-22
SOUTHERN AVE

Miles BASELINE RD

0.15 0.075 0 0.15
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD

LAVEEN VILLAGE
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR




51ST AVE
27TH AVE

43RD AVE 35TH AVE



APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
IDM Companies
FROM:
S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD) ( 4.79 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-73-22
DATE:
10/27/2022
REVISION DATES:
S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD) ( 16.00 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
12/23/2022 S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) ( 59.70 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
80.49 Acres QS 03-13 C-4 TO: PUD ( 80.49 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD),
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD)
4 (69), 16 (160), 59 (256) N/A (83), N/A (192), N/A (328)
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\2022\Z-73-22.mxd
Page 696
63RD AVE ALIGNMENT
59TH AVE
C-2 *
HGT/WVR
C-2 H-R DNS/WVR
Z-16-09 Z-41-21

C-2/CP-GCP SP *
R-2 PUD * C-2 H-R SP *
Z-SP-4-09

R1-6 PCD
Z-60-16 PCD Z-1-21
Z-SP-4-09
S-1
A
A
Z
Z-60-16
DOBBINS RD
C-2/CP-GCP
C-1 PCD * Z-79-01
Z-180-04 S-1
ANX 271
Z-100-02

R-2 PCD *
Z-180-04
S-1
w
v


R1-8
S-1
GILA PCD *
Z-180-04
Z-28-03




R-3A
RIVER PCD *
Z-31-04
C-2/CP-GCP
Z-79-01 OLNEY AVE ALIGNMENT
INDIAN C-2/CP-GCP
Z-79-01 R1-10*
R-2 PCD * ANX 271
Z-100-02
RESERVATION Z-180-04 Z-27-19




Maricopa County Assessor's Office




I
BROADWAY RD
Z-73-22
SOUTHERN AVE

Miles BASELINE RD

0.15 0.075 0 0.15
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD

LAVEEN VILLAGE
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7
59TH AVE
ESTRELLA DR




51ST AVE
27TH AVE

43RD AVE 35TH AVE



APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
IDM Companies
FROM:
S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD) ( 4.79 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-73-22
DATE:
10/27/2022
REVISION DATES:
S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD) ( 16.00 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
12/23/2022 S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD) ( 59.70 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
80.49 Acres QS 03-13 C-4 TO: PUD ( 80.49 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD),
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD)
4 (69), 16 (160), 59 (256) N/A (83), N/A (192), N/A (328)
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\2022\Z-73-22.mxd
Page 697
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-73-22-7
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting January 9, 2023
Request From S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD),
and S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD)
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Commerce park development
Location Southwest corner of 63rd Avenue and Dobbins Road


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 8 (Z-75-22-8), Item No. 9 (GPA-LV-4-22-8), Item No. 10 (Z-72-22-8), Item No.
11 (GPA-LV-5-22-7), and Item No. 12 (Z-73-22-7) were heard together.

Four members of the public registered to speak on these item. Two of the members
donated their time.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION:

Jason Morris, representing the applicant with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself
and the three proposed projects by IDM. Mr. Morris stated that he will provide a
combined presentation for agenda items 8 though 12. Mr. Morris provided an overview
of IDM, describing the Columbia Tech Center, which is owned by IDM. Mr. Morris then
introduced Item No. 8 (Z-75-22-8), by the name of Curato, describing the site location,
changes made to the site plan and elevations, and the proposed site plan plus
elevations. Mr. Morris stated that 171 dwelling units are now proposed, with the primary
access along Elliot Road. Mr. Morris described the proposed building elevations,
renderings, site amenities, and housing plus retail trends in the area. Mr. Morris
concluded by listing various project benefits. Mr. Morris then introduced Item Nos. 9
(GPA-LV-4-22-8) and 10 (Z-72-22-8), by the name of Acero Laveen, describing the site
location, development units, site plans, renderings, landscape concepts, common
tenants in commerce parks, proposed buffering, traffic circulation, and referenced other
developments. Mr. Morris described site amenities proposed in Development Unit 2,
housing trends, and off-premise signage. Mr. Morris concluded by listing various project
benefits. Mr. Morris then introduced Item Nos. 11 (GPA-LV-5-22-7) and 12 (Z-73-22-7),
by the name of Envision Dobbins 202 West, describing the site location and how this
development furthers the Loop 202 technology corridor. Mr. Morris described the site
plan, project phases, renderings, common tenants in commerce parks, and provided an

200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 698
example of a common distribution facility. Mr. Morris stated that there are performance
criteria for distribution facilities embedded in the proposed PUD Narrative. Mr. Morris
described the project benefits and concluded by summarizing the outreach conducted
on these cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Dan Penton stated that on case Z-75-22-7, staff was not in favor of the initial
multifamily zoning proposed there. Mr. Penton discussed multifamily projects in the area
and has concerns with the buildings proposed on case Z-72-22-8 due to the height,
scale, and lack of commercial uses. Mr. Penton stated that the frontage along 59th
Avenue that is proposed looks bad due to the building locations. Mr. Penton discussed
a bicycle way and improving connectivity on the site. Mr. Penton has concerns with the
proposed

Phil Hertel registered to speak on these items but was disconnected during public
comment portion.

APPLICANT RESPONSE:

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Carlos Ortega stated that too many projects are being presented at one time by the
applicant and feels overwhelmed. Mr. Ortega would like for applicants to present their
projects individually instead.

Rebecca Perrera would like to see refinement in the building elevations and became
confused by the numerous projects discussed at one time.

Chair Abegg would like to see more details on each case and is not supportive of
distribution facilities as primary uses permitted in sites. Chair Abegg would like to see a
stipulation reserving a grocery store location in the area.

Mr. Morris responded that he would gladly present these cases separately in the future.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 699
REVISED
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-73-22-7

Date of VPC Meeting February 13, 2023
Request From S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD), S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD), and
S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD)
Request To PUD
Proposed Use Planned Unit Development to allow
commerce park development
Location Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of
State Route 202 and Dobbins Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with a
modification
VPC Vote 7-0

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Item No. 7 (GPA-LV-5-22-7) and Item No. 8 (Z-73-22-7) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Eight members of the public registered to speak on these items. Six of the members
donated their time.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

Enrique Bojórquez, staff, provided an overview of the rezoning proposal, Z-73-22-7,
including the companion minor General Plan Amendment case GPA-LV-5-22-7,
describing the location of the requests, the existing and proposed zoning districts and
land use designations and the proposed use. Mr. Bojórquez reviewed the surrounding
zoning districts, land uses and described the two phases of the project. Mr. Bojórquez
listed several policy plans and described how these are furthered by this proposal. Mr.
Bojórquez stated that staff did not receive any letters from the public regarding these
requests. Mr. Bojórquez provided staff findings, followed by the staff recommendation
of approval on each case, and discussed the stipulations as presented in the staff
report for case Z-73-22-7.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION:



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 700
Ben Tate, representing the applicant with Withey Morris PLC., introduced himself and
the proposed project. Mr. Tate discussed the South Mountain Technology Corridor and
the Columbia Tech Center which was developed by IDM, the same developer of this
project. Mr. Tate described the location of the site, existing land use designations and
zoning districts on the site and surrounding area. Mr. Tate discussed the proposed site
plan, which is divided into two phases. Mr. Tate discussed building renderings and
explained that this site is not intended to be used as a distribution facility, describing a
list of example tenants. Mr. Tate described the specs of a site used for manufacturing,
providing examples of similar buildings designed by the same architecture firm. Mr.
Tate discussed proposed changes to Stipulation No. 1.e, which would make large-scale
wholesale uses subject to additional conditions in the PUD Narrative. Mr. Tate
described an employment/market study and economic impacts to the area. Mr. Tate
provided a summary of the public outreach conducted and project benefits. Mr. Tate
concluded the presentation by requesting a recommendation of approval on each case.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:

Vice Chair Hurd stated that she met with the Community and Economic Development
(CED) Department and was informed that a user was attracted to this site by this
department. Ms. Hurd stated that CED is confident that other good users would be
attracted to the area and is supportive plus excited of Jeff Gordon’s work.

Chair Abegg appreciates the changes made to the Development Narrative for this
PUD.

Rebecca Perrera asked for clarification on the first phase project timeline.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Dan Penton feels assured knowing that this developer will not only develop the land
but will also own it into the future. Mr. Penton also appreciates the changes made to
the Development Narrative, adding that this and other sites in the general area will
create 6 million square feet of industrial space to meet the 4.1 million square feet
needed over the next 4 years. Mr. Penton stated that the original entitlement on the
land required certain features that he would like to be part of this project to pay
homage to the area.

APPLICANT RESPONSE:

Mr. Tate stated that Building A would be built first to accommodate a tenant that has
been identified. Mr. Tate added that an electrical substation is required in the area to
serve the growing demand.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.

MOTION (Z-73-22-7):




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 701
Vice Chair Hurd motioned to approve Z-73-22-7 per the staff recommendation with a
modification to Stipulation Nos. 1.e per the applicant’s request. JoAnne Jensen
seconded the motion.


Modified Stipulation:

1.e. Pages 5 and 6, Performance Criteria for Distribution Uses. Modify this
section as follows:

Performance Criteria for Distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE*
Uses:

For the Phase 1 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit 7 -
Phasing Plan, distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE uses are
subject to the following criteria:

• Distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities as a
primary use shall not be permitted within 500 feet of the property
line along Dobbins Road including within Building A.
• No distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities are
permitted as a primary use within Building B for a time period of 4
years from the date of rezoning approval.

For the Phase 2 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit 7 -
Phasing Plan, distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE uses are
subject to the following criteria:

• No distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities are
permitted as a primary use for a time period of 4 years from the date
of rezoning approval.
• After 4 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution AND
LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE uses may be permitted as a primary
use up to a maximum of 50% of the total building area for the Phase
2 area.
• After 7 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution AND
LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE may be permitted as a primary use.

*FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PUD, “LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE” IS
DEFINED AS WHOLESALE AS A PRIMARY USE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL
USER OCCUPYING MORE THAN 50% OF ANY INDIVIDUAL BUILDING.

VOTE (Z-73-22-7):

7-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-73-22-7 per the staff recommendation with a
stipulation modification, passes with Committee Members Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen,
Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, Hurd and Abegg in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 702
The following stipulations reflect all of the stipulations approved at the February 13,
2023 Laveen Village Planning Committee meeting on case Z-73-22-7:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with Development Narrative
date stamped January 24, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations.

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

b. Update the acreage throughout the Development Narrative to match with
that of the sketch map for rezoning case Z-73-22-7.

c. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Permitted Uses. Modify this section as
follows:

• Revise second bullet point to: “Food and spice manufacturing….”.

d. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Prohibited Uses. Remove “Publicly
operated buildings or properties” and “Public utility buildings and facilities
when necessary for serving the surrounding territory” from this list.

e. Pages 5 and 6, Performance Criteria for Distribution Uses. Modify this
section as follows:

Performance Criteria for Distribution AND LARGE-SCALE
WHOLESALE* Uses:

For the Phase 1 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit
7 - Phasing Plan, distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE
uses are subject to the following criteria:

• Distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities as
a primary use shall not be permitted within 500 feet of the
property line along Dobbins Road including within Building
A.
• No distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities
are permitted as a primary use within Building B for a time
period of 4 years from the date of rezoning approval.

For the Phase 2 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit
7 - Phasing Plan, distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE
uses are subject to the following criteria:

• No distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities
are permitted as a primary use for a time period of 4 years
from the date of rezoning approval.
• After 4 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution
AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE uses may be permitted

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 703
as a primary use up to a maximum of 50% of the total
building area for the Phase 2 area.
• After 7 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution
AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE may be permitted as a
primary use.

*FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PUD, “LARGE-SCALE
WHOLESALE” IS DEFINED AS WHOLESALE AS A PRIMARY
USE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL USER OCCUPYING MORE THAN
50% OF ANY INDIVIDUAL BUILDING.

f. Page 7, Development Standards table, Maximum Building Height. Modify
this section as follows: Maximum 56 feet, except that one building within
the Phase I area may have a maximum height of 85 feet provided that it
meets the following standards:

• Does not exceed 15% of the total building area;
• Minimum building setback of 700 feet from the centerline of 63rd
Avenue; and
• Minimum building setback of 100 feet from all other property lines.

Roof mounted equipment shall be fully screened from the adjacent public
street line of sight.

g. Page 8, Development Standards table, Electric Vehicle Parking. Modify
this section as follows: Minimum Percentage of Total Parking Spaces with
Level 2 EV Charging Station Installed: 5% of Required Parking. Minimum
Percentage of Total Parking Spaces to be EV-Capable for Level 2 EV
Charging Station: Minimum 15% of Required Parking.

h. Page 9, Development Standards table, Open Storage Standards. Modify
this section as follows: Any open use or storage area, where permitted,
shall be located no less than 100 feet from a perimeter (street) property
line. Any open use, including loading spaces or docking areas, shall be
fully screened with a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wall where visible from a
public street or residential district.

Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor perforation
may occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall not exceed
50% of the gate surface area.

i. Page 9, Landscape Standards, General section. Modify as follows: Where
utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

j. Page 11, Landscape Standards, Shade section. Modify last bullet point as
follows: Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 704
k. age 13, Site Design/Development section, Third bullet point: Change last
sentence to “Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor
perforation may occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall
not exceed 50% of the gate surface area.”

l. Page 21, Comparative Development Standards Table. Update this table
as necessary to incorporate any changes to the development standards in
the Development Narrative.

2. A bus stop pad shall be constructed on eastbound Dobbins Road. Bus stop pad
shall be designed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
depth of 10 feet and located from 65th Avenue according to City of Phoenix
Standard Detail P1258.

3. The developer shall submit a Master Street Plan (MSP), as required by the
Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation Department, prior to preliminary site plan approval. The Master
Street Plan shall match dedication requirements and improvements as required
by the surrounding approved Master Streets Plans (Dobbins Industrial Park
(MSP), Laveen Ranch (MSP) and Laveen Center MSP, and as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

4. The developer 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 Street Transportation Department. The TIS shall
include signal warrant analysis for 65th Avenue and Dobbins, 63rd Avenue and
Dobbins Road and 63rd Avenue and Olney. If the approved TIS determines that
a signal is warranted at any of these intersection, the developer shall be required
to fund 100% of the cost and construct the signal, if the TIS does not warrant the
signal, the developer shall be required contribute 25% of traffic signal cost in an
escrow account to the Street Transportation Department.

5. Existing irrigation facilities along public street are to be undergrounded and
relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights
and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require
additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat
and/or civil plan review approval.

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. 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.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 705
8. 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.

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

10. Prior to 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.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 706
ATTACHMENT D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 2, 2023

ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: 7
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-73-22-7 (Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD)
(Companion Case GPA-LV-5-22-7)
Location: Approximately 550 feet west of the southwest corner of State Route 202
and Dobbins Road
From: S-1 (Approved R-2 PCD), S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD), and S-1 (Approved
C-1 PCD)
To: PUD
Acreage: 80.49
Proposal: Planned unit development to allow commerce park development.
Applicant: IDM Companies
Owner: The Smith Trust dated May 30, 2003 (Clyde David Smith & Marsha Lou
Smith)
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 1/9/2023 Information only.
Laveen 2/13/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification. Vote: 7-0.

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

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-73-22-7, per the Laveen
Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Mangum
Second: Boyd
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Simon
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. The proposed development is compatible with the existing land use pattern in the area
and is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Mixed
Use (Industrial/ Commerce/Business Park).

2. The proposed development contains enhanced standards that will result in a more
walkable, shaded and pedestrian-friendly environment. The development will provide
increased shade which will help to reduce the urban heat island effect.


Page 707
3. The proposal will provide additional employment options and commercial services
within the Loop 202 Freeway corridor.

Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Envision Dobbins 202 West PUD reflecting
the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with Development Narrative date stamped
January 24, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations.

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

b. Update the acreage throughout the Development Narrative to match with that of
the sketch map for rezoning case Z-73-22-7.

c. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Permitted Uses. Modify this section as follows:

x Revise second bullet point to: “Food and spice manufacturing….”.

d. Page 5, Section C. (List of Uses), Prohibited Uses. Remove “Publicly operated
buildings or properties” and “Public utility buildings and facilities when necessary
for serving the surrounding territory” from this list.

e. Pages 5 and 6, Performance Criteria for Distribution Uses. Modify this section as
follows:

Performance Criteria for Distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE*
Uses:

For the Phase 1 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit 7 -
Phasing Plan, distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE uses are
subject to the following criteria:

x Distribution AND LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities as a
primary use shall not be permitted within 500 feet of the property
line along Dobbins Road including within Building A.

x No distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities are
permitted as a primary use within Building B for a time period of 4
years from the date of rezoning approval.

For the Phase 2 area, as depicted and legally described in Exhibit 7 -
Phasing Plan, distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE uses are
subject to the following criteria:

x No distribution OR LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE facilities are
permitted as a primary use for a time period of 4 years from the
date of rezoning approval.

x After 4 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution AND
LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE uses may be permitted as a primary


Page 708
use up to a maximum of 50% of the total building area for the
Phase 2 area.

x After 7 years from the date of rezoning approval, distribution AND
LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE may be permitted as a primary use.

*FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PUD, “LARGE-SCALE WHOLESALE”
IS DEFINED AS WHOLESALE AS A PRIMARY USE FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL USER OCCUPYING MORE THAN 50% OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL BUILDING.

f. Page 7, Development Standards table, Maximum Building Height. Modify this
section as follows: Maximum 56 feet, except that one building within the Phase I
area may have a maximum height of 85 feet provided that it meets the following
standards:

x Does not exceed 15% of the total building area;

x Minimum building setback of 700 feet from the centerline of 63rd Avenue;
and

x Minimum building setback of 100 feet from all other property lines.

Roof mounted equipment shall be fully screened from the adjacent public street
line of sight.

g. Page 8, Development Standards table, Electric Vehicle Parking. Modify this
section as follows: Minimum Percentage of Total Parking Spaces with Level 2
EV Charging Station Installed: 5% of Required Parking. Minimum Percentage of
Total Parking Spaces to be EV-Capable for Level 2 EV Charging Station:
Minimum 15% of Required Parking.

h. Page 9, Development Standards table, Open Storage Standards. Modify this
section as follows: Any open use or storage area, where permitted, shall be
located no less than 100 feet from a perimeter (street) property line. Any open
use, including loading spaces or docking areas, shall be fully screened with a
minimum 8-foot-tall solid wall where visible from a public street or residential
district.

Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor perforation may
occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall not exceed 50% of the
gate surface area.

i. Page 9, Landscape Standards, General section. Modify as follows: Where utility
conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.

j. Page 11, Landscape Standards, Shade section. Modify last bullet point as
follows: Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning
and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.


Page 709
k. Page 13, Site Design/Development section, Third bullet point: Change last
sentence to “Where metal gates are provided for vehicular access, minor
perforation may occur to accommodate wind loads. The perforation shall not
exceed 50% of the gate surface area.”

l. Page 21, Comparative Development Standards Table. Update this table as
necessary to incorporate any changes to the development standards in the
Development Narrative.

2. A bus stop pad shall be constructed on eastbound Dobbins Road. Bus stop pad shall
be designed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a depth of 10
feet and located from 65th Avenue according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1258.

3. The developer shall submit a Master Street Plan (MSP), as required by the Planned
Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development and Street Transportation Department, prior to
preliminary site plan approval. The Master Street Plan shall match dedication
requirements and improvements as required by the surrounding approved Master
Streets Plans (Dobbins Industrial Park (MSP), Laveen Ranch (MSP) and Laveen
Center MSP, and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

4. The developer 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 Street Transportation Department. The TIS shall include signal warrant analysis
for 65th Avenue and Dobbins, 63rd Avenue and Dobbins Road and 63rd Avenue and
Olney. If the approved TIS determines that a signal is warranted at any of these
intersection, the developer shall be required to fund 100% of the cost and construct the
signal, if the TIS does not warrant the signal, the developer shall be required contribute
25% of traffic signal cost in an escrow account to the Street Transportation
Department.

5. Existing irrigation facilities along public street are to be undergrounded and relocated
outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights and establish
appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require additional dedications
or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review
approval.

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. 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.

8. 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 710
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

10. Prior to 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) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 711



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Moratorium on Development of Three Mobile Home Parks

On April 4, 2023, Councilmember Carlos Garcia and Councilwomen Laura Pastor and
Betty Guardado submitted a request (Attachment A) to the City Manager to place an
item on the April 5, 2023, Formal City Council agenda. The request is for the City
Council to consider a vote to place a moratorium on development of the Periwinkle,
Las Casitas, and Weldon Court mobile home parks.

This request is in compliance with Rule 2(c) of the Rules of Council Proceedings.

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




Page 712
Attachment A




4 April 2023


City Manager, Jeff Barton
200 W. Washington St., 12th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Add On Item – Moratorium on Development of 3 Mobile Home Parks

City Manager Jeff Barton,

Phoenix needs real leadership to address our homelessness crisis. Each of us has worked
diligently with city staff, community leaders and non-profit partners to bring forward additional
shelter beds and improve support services. But we will never be able to make real progress on
the problem of homelessness until we look upstream to see how we can prevent people from
losing their housing in the first place.

In our city today, over 300 residents in mobile home parks are facing eviction without plans as
to where they will live. As City leaders, we cannot not sit by as these families face imminent
homelessness. The service providers working to connect these residents with housing options
are telling us they need more time to ensure these families do not end up on our streets.

Therefore, we request that a moratorium on development of 3 mobile home parks (Periwinkle,
Las Casitas and Weldon Court) be added to the Formal Agenda scheduled for Wednesday, April
5, 2023, for a full vote of the Phoenix City Council.




Councilwoman Laura Pastor
Councilmember Carlos Garcia
Phoenix City Council – District 4
Phoenix City Council – District 8



Councilwoman Betty Guardado
Phoenix City Council – District 5

Office of the City Council
200 West Washington Street, 11th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611

Page 713

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

86 item(s)