Meeting phoenix-formal-meeting-2026-01-07 complete
2026-01-07 · Formal
Items: 100 / 100
Formal Meeting
Synced: 2026-05-28 07:04 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.
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: January 7, 2026
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:
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:
Susie Smith
Ms. Smith is a retiree and a resident of District 5. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire
January 7, 2028.
Parks and Recreation Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Rick Naimark
Mr. Naimark is an Associate Vice President at Arizona State University and a resident of
District 7. He replaces Kelly Dalton for a partial term to expire April 4, 2027.
Report
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: January 7, 2026
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:
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:
Susie Smith
Ms. Smith is a retiree and a resident of District 5. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire
January 7, 2028.
Parks and Recreation Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Rick Naimark
Mr. Naimark is an Associate Vice President at Arizona State University and a resident of
District 7. He replaces Kelly Dalton for a partial term to expire April 4, 2027.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Judges
Request to permit the swearing in of Municipal Court Judges.
Summary
Administer the oath of office for the reappointments of five Municipal Court Judges to
another four-year term as Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On November 5, 2025, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended
reappointments of five Municipal Court Judges to another four-year term as Judge of
the Phoenix Municipal Court.
On November 19, 2025, the City Council approved the reappointment of the following:
· Judge Monyette Nyquist as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year
term that would end on December 19, 2029.
· Judge Ana Sanchez as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term
that would end on December 19, 2029.
· Judge Hercules Dellas as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year
term that would end on January 17, 2030.
· Judge Heidi Gilbert as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term
that would end on January 17, 2030.
· Judge Frankie Jones as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year
term that would end on January 17, 2030.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the City Council
Office.
Report
Request to permit the swearing in of Municipal Court Judges.
Summary
Administer the oath of office for the reappointments of five Municipal Court Judges to
another four-year term as Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On November 5, 2025, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended
reappointments of five Municipal Court Judges to another four-year term as Judge of
the Phoenix Municipal Court.
On November 19, 2025, the City Council approved the reappointment of the following:
· Judge Monyette Nyquist as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year
term that would end on December 19, 2029.
· Judge Ana Sanchez as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term
that would end on December 19, 2029.
· Judge Hercules Dellas as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year
term that would end on January 17, 2030.
· Judge Heidi Gilbert as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term
that would end on January 17, 2030.
· Judge Frankie Jones as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year
term that would end on January 17, 2030.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the City Council
Office.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Reappointment of Phoenix Municipal Court Judge - Citywide
This item is to consider the reappointment of a Phoenix Municipal Court Judge for a
four-year term.
Summary
The Judicial Selection Advisory Board convened on November 5, 2025, and
recommended the following reappointment of Phoenix Municipal Court Judge:
· Judge Alex Benezra as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term
that would end on January 17, 2030.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Phoenix
Municipal Court.
Report
This item is to consider the reappointment of a Phoenix Municipal Court Judge for a
four-year term.
Summary
The Judicial Selection Advisory Board convened on November 5, 2025, and
recommended the following reappointment of Phoenix Municipal Court Judge:
· Judge Alex Benezra as a Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court for a four-year term
that would end on January 17, 2030.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Phoenix
Municipal Court.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Our Lady of Czestochowa Roman Catholic
Parish Phoenix - District 1
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Kinga Hoffmann
Location
2828 W. Country Gables Drive
Council District: 1
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 31, 2026 - 7 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 Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Parish Phoenix - District 1
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Kinga Hoffmann
Location
2828 W. Country Gables Drive
Council District: 1
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 31, 2026 - 7 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 Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Double Tree by Hilton Phoenix North - District 1
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366237.
Summary
Applicant
Tammy Facer, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
10220 N. Metro Parkway East
Zoning Classification: RSC, RSC SP
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was January 4, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the expertise and knowledge of compliance, a strong understanding of local
regulations, and a commitment to responsible service, ensuring that all standards for
the liquor license are met.”
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 enhance the hospitality offerings, attract more visitors, support local businesses,
and contribute positively to the local economy and community engagement.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Double Tree by Hilton Phoenix North - Data
Attachment B - Double Tree by Hilton Phoenix North - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: DOUBLE TREE BY HILTON PHOENIX
NORTH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 3 1
Government 5 2 0
Bar 6 15 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 5
Liquor Store 9 7 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Hotel 11 12 12
Restaurant 12 53 36
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 253.26 486.41
Violent Crimes 12.31 39.01 58.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 19
Total Violations 69 51
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042052 2410 76 64 453
1042054 1560 187 71 626
1043012 1885 605 31 309
1043021 1378 183 36 402
1043022 2468 355 166 423
1044012 1461 17 28 88
1044022 1976 11 68 250
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: DOUBLE TREE BY HILTON PHOENIX NORTH
10220 N METRO PKWY
Date: 11/24/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366237.
Summary
Applicant
Tammy Facer, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
10220 N. Metro Parkway East
Zoning Classification: RSC, RSC SP
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was January 4, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the expertise and knowledge of compliance, a strong understanding of local
regulations, and a commitment to responsible service, ensuring that all standards for
the liquor license are met.”
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 enhance the hospitality offerings, attract more visitors, support local businesses,
and contribute positively to the local economy and community engagement.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Double Tree by Hilton Phoenix North - Data
Attachment B - Double Tree by Hilton Phoenix North - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: DOUBLE TREE BY HILTON PHOENIX
NORTH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 3 1
Government 5 2 0
Bar 6 15 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 5
Liquor Store 9 7 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Hotel 11 12 12
Restaurant 12 53 36
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 253.26 486.41
Violent Crimes 12.31 39.01 58.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 19
Total Violations 69 51
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042052 2410 76 64 453
1042054 1560 187 71 626
1043012 1885 605 31 309
1043021 1378 183 36 402
1043022 2468 355 166 423
1044012 1461 17 28 88
1044022 1976 11 68 250
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: DOUBLE TREE BY HILTON PHOENIX NORTH
10220 N METRO PKWY
Date: 11/24/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Arizona Wine Foundation Inc. - District 2
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Pigford
Location
15215 N. Kierland Boulevard
Council District: 2
Function
Art & Wine Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 31, 2026 - 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. / 2,500 attendees
February 1, 2026 - 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. / 2,000 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Pigford
Location
15215 N. Kierland Boulevard
Council District: 2
Function
Art & Wine Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 31, 2026 - 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. / 2,500 attendees
February 1, 2026 - 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. / 2,000 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Kajiken Ramen - District 2
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 359516.
Summary
Applicant
Patrick Dicesare, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
21001 N. Tatum Boulevard, Ste. 34-1140
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 20, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owners of the restaurant are responsible, experienced, and successful
restaurateurs of other locations throughout the United States. Its manager has
received their liquor management training by authorized training providers. The
owners, operators and management are committed to following all State, Federal and
Local laws regarding the sale and consumption of alcohol.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The best interest of the community will be served by the issuance of the Series 12
liquor license. City of Phoenix residents have come to expect to have the option of
consuming an alcoholic beverage when enjoying a meal at a restaurant.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Kajiken Ramen - Data
Attachment B - Kajiken Ramen - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: KAJIKEN RAMEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 29 28
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 13
Liquor Store 9 7 7
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 8
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 78 75
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 53.42 150.63
Violent Crimes 12.31 2.91 7.74
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 0
Total Violations 70 0
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6150021 488 100 5 14
6150023 1947 397 143 101
6151001 1413 407 25 11
6152012 6102 515 722 1020
6152022 84 50 30 0
6152023 3418 1016 778 112
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: KAJIKEN RAMEN
21001 N TATUM BLVD
Date: 12/7/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 359516.
Summary
Applicant
Patrick Dicesare, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
21001 N. Tatum Boulevard, Ste. 34-1140
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 20, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owners of the restaurant are responsible, experienced, and successful
restaurateurs of other locations throughout the United States. Its manager has
received their liquor management training by authorized training providers. The
owners, operators and management are committed to following all State, Federal and
Local laws regarding the sale and consumption of alcohol.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The best interest of the community will be served by the issuance of the Series 12
liquor license. City of Phoenix residents have come to expect to have the option of
consuming an alcoholic beverage when enjoying a meal at a restaurant.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Kajiken Ramen - Data
Attachment B - Kajiken Ramen - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: KAJIKEN RAMEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 29 28
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 13
Liquor Store 9 7 7
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 8
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 78 75
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 53.42 150.63
Violent Crimes 12.31 2.91 7.74
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 0
Total Violations 70 0
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6150021 488 100 5 14
6150023 1947 397 143 101
6151001 1413 407 25 11
6152012 6102 515 722 1020
6152022 84 50 30 0
6152023 3418 1016 778 112
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: KAJIKEN RAMEN
21001 N TATUM BLVD
Date: 12/7/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Girasol Breakfast and Brunch - District 3
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 361799.
Summary
Applicant
Miguel Rocha, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1810 W. Northern Avenue, Ste. 9 & 10
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP RPSPD
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 17, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Im so responsoble kind, and, respeteble off the law.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My purpose is get better business to the area and try the comunity and neighbors
pass a good time.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Girasol Breakfast and Brunch - Data
Attachment B - Girasol Breakfast and Brunch - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: GIRASOL BREAKFAST AND
BRUNCH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 4 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 201.24 320.7
Violent Crimes 12.31 43.84 61.88
*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 41 72
Total Violations 70 152
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1054001 1246 488 20 0
1054002 1261 465 33 28
1054003 1227 324 26 16
1055021 817 6 37 208
1055031 515 0 19 63
1055032 3678 260 205 969
1060021 1826 129 76 413
1060022 1038 145 43 199
1061001 1093 414 14 0
1061002 1280 430 31 277
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: GIRASOL BREAKFAST AND BRUNCH
1810 W NORTHERN AVE
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 361799.
Summary
Applicant
Miguel Rocha, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1810 W. Northern Avenue, Ste. 9 & 10
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP RPSPD
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 17, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Im so responsoble kind, and, respeteble off the law.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My purpose is get better business to the area and try the comunity and neighbors
pass a good time.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Girasol Breakfast and Brunch - Data
Attachment B - Girasol Breakfast and Brunch - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: GIRASOL BREAKFAST AND
BRUNCH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 4 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 201.24 320.7
Violent Crimes 12.31 43.84 61.88
*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 41 72
Total Violations 70 152
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1054001 1246 488 20 0
1054002 1261 465 33 28
1054003 1227 324 26 16
1055021 817 6 37 208
1055031 515 0 19 63
1055032 3678 260 205 969
1060021 1826 129 76 413
1060022 1038 145 43 199
1061001 1093 414 14 0
1061002 1280 430 31 277
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: GIRASOL BREAKFAST AND BRUNCH
1810 W NORTHERN AVE
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Noor Mediterranean - District 3
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365892.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Kaffer, Jr., Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
10625 N. Tatum Boulevard, Ste. 150
Zoning Classification: C-2 SP
Council District: 3
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 was January 2, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working for Arizona Alcohol Traffic & Firearms for 3 years helping
establishments acquire liquor licenses through state and local jurisdictions while
maintaining title four compliance.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts,golf
courses, special events, convenience/ liquor / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to
this proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Noor Mediterranean - Data
Attachment B - Noor Mediterranean - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: NOOR MEDITERRANEAN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 2
Bar 6 2 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 5
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 6
Hotel 11 3 0
Restaurant 12 29 20
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 30.78 50.42
Violent Crimes 12.31 2.41 3.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 4
Total Violations 69 5
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032081 1370 464 39 45
1032083 910 500 68 27
1032092 313 141 131 14
1032093 1786 622 64 68
1032094 1784 460 154 85
1050032 2066 671 97 29
1051012 1961 677 14 45
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: NOOR MEDITERRANEAN
10625 N TATUM BLVD
Date: 11/24/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365892.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Kaffer, Jr., Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
10625 N. Tatum Boulevard, Ste. 150
Zoning Classification: C-2 SP
Council District: 3
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 was January 2, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working for Arizona Alcohol Traffic & Firearms for 3 years helping
establishments acquire liquor licenses through state and local jurisdictions while
maintaining title four compliance.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts,golf
courses, special events, convenience/ liquor / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to
this proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Noor Mediterranean - Data
Attachment B - Noor Mediterranean - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: NOOR MEDITERRANEAN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 2
Bar 6 2 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 5
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 6
Hotel 11 3 0
Restaurant 12 29 20
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 30.78 50.42
Violent Crimes 12.31 2.41 3.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 4
Total Violations 69 5
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032081 1370 464 39 45
1032083 910 500 68 27
1032092 313 141 131 14
1032093 1786 622 64 68
1032094 1784 460 154 85
1050032 2066 671 97 29
1051012 1961 677 14 45
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: NOOR MEDITERRANEAN
10625 N TATUM BLVD
Date: 11/24/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - St. Mary's Roman Catholic High School Phoenix
- District 4
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Paula Weitzel
Location
2525 N. 3rd Street
Council District: 4
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 21, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 250 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
- District 4
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Paula Weitzel
Location
2525 N. 3rd Street
Council District: 4
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 21, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 250 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Ukrainian National Women's League of America,
Inc., Branch #3 - District 4
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Nataliya Anderson
Location
4715 N. Central Avenue
Council District: 4
Function
Gala
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 24, 2026 - 4:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 250 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Inc., Branch #3 - District 4
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Nataliya Anderson
Location
4715 N. Central Avenue
Council District: 4
Function
Gala
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 24, 2026 - 4:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 250 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Coronado Patty & Grill - District 4
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366966.
Summary
Applicant
Hussam Yousef, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2605 N. 7th Street
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
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 was January 6, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
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.
Mesa Liquor (Series 9)
1930 E. Broadway Road, Ste. 2, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Virginia Market (Series 9)
702 E. Virginia Avenue, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 5
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 the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because I
have been responsibly managing two liquor licenses (#9) since 2017, maintaining full
compliance with all state regulations, and consistently operating my businesses in a
safe, responsible, and well-managed manner.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“They will support a well-managed, compliant business that provides residents with a
safe and convenient location for dining and beverage service. This license will allow us
to enhance the customer experience, create additional jobs, contribute to the local
economy, and offer a responsible,controlled environment that meets the needs of the
community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Coronado Patty & Grill - Data
Attachment B - Coronado Patty & Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CORONADO PATTY & GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 20 5
Beer and Wine Bar 7 17 0
Liquor Store 9 12 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 22 11
Hotel 11 2 2
Restaurant 12 90 36
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 155.73 100.63
Violent Crimes 12.31 32.59 19.32
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 51
Total Violations 70 70
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1105022 2166 436 185 339
1106004 1350 265 59 196
1117001 1240 396 65 217
1117003 951 300 94 62
1117004 1426 315 66 49
1118001 962 221 108 264
1118004 1423 507 117 200
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: CORONADO PATTY & GRILL
2605 N 7TH ST
Date: 11/26/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366966.
Summary
Applicant
Hussam Yousef, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2605 N. 7th Street
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
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 was January 6, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
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.
Mesa Liquor (Series 9)
1930 E. Broadway Road, Ste. 2, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Virginia Market (Series 9)
702 E. Virginia Avenue, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 5
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 the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because I
have been responsibly managing two liquor licenses (#9) since 2017, maintaining full
compliance with all state regulations, and consistently operating my businesses in a
safe, responsible, and well-managed manner.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“They will support a well-managed, compliant business that provides residents with a
safe and convenient location for dining and beverage service. This license will allow us
to enhance the customer experience, create additional jobs, contribute to the local
economy, and offer a responsible,controlled environment that meets the needs of the
community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Coronado Patty & Grill - Data
Attachment B - Coronado Patty & Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CORONADO PATTY & GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 20 5
Beer and Wine Bar 7 17 0
Liquor Store 9 12 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 22 11
Hotel 11 2 2
Restaurant 12 90 36
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 155.73 100.63
Violent Crimes 12.31 32.59 19.32
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 51
Total Violations 70 70
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1105022 2166 436 185 339
1106004 1350 265 59 196
1117001 1240 396 65 217
1117003 951 300 94 62
1117004 1426 315 66 49
1118001 962 221 108 264
1118004 1423 507 117 200
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: CORONADO PATTY & GRILL
2605 N 7TH ST
Date: 11/26/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Hachiko Sushi House - District 4
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365093.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1616 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 102
Zoning Classification: DTC - Downtown Gateway
Council District: 4
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 was January 2, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We understand the responsibilities that come with selling and serving alcohol,
including compliance with all local and state liquor laws, responsible service practices,
and record keeping requirements.”
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 committed to maintaining a safe, respectful, and law-abiding environment for
patrons and the community. This establishment will meet a demonstrated need for a
safe, well-managed venue where patrons can enjoy food and beverages responsibly. It
will also provide additional options for residents and visitors within the area, enhancing
local hospitality offerings.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Hachiko Sushi House - Data
Attachment B - Hachiko Sushi House - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: HACHIKO SUSHI HOUSE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 4 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 4 2
Bar 6 19 5
Beer and Wine Bar 7 8 5
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 0
Hotel 11 3 0
Restaurant 12 45 12
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 208.86 256.47
Violent Crimes 12.31 42.62 55.52
*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 41 33
Total Violations 70 46
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1118002 846 361 100 89
1118003 1247 510 88 26
1118004 1423 507 117 200
1119002 642 264 45 17
1129001 1399 521 53 62
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1130002 1364 179 221 139
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: HACHIKO SUSHI HOUSE
1616 N CENTRAL AVE
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365093.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1616 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 102
Zoning Classification: DTC - Downtown Gateway
Council District: 4
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 was January 2, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We understand the responsibilities that come with selling and serving alcohol,
including compliance with all local and state liquor laws, responsible service practices,
and record keeping requirements.”
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 committed to maintaining a safe, respectful, and law-abiding environment for
patrons and the community. This establishment will meet a demonstrated need for a
safe, well-managed venue where patrons can enjoy food and beverages responsibly. It
will also provide additional options for residents and visitors within the area, enhancing
local hospitality offerings.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Hachiko Sushi House - Data
Attachment B - Hachiko Sushi House - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: HACHIKO SUSHI HOUSE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 4 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 4 2
Bar 6 19 5
Beer and Wine Bar 7 8 5
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 0
Hotel 11 3 0
Restaurant 12 45 12
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 208.86 256.47
Violent Crimes 12.31 42.62 55.52
*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 41 33
Total Violations 70 46
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1118002 846 361 100 89
1118003 1247 510 88 26
1118004 1423 507 117 200
1119002 642 264 45 17
1129001 1399 521 53 62
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1130002 1364 179 221 139
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: HACHIKO SUSHI HOUSE
1616 N CENTRAL AVE
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Tandy's - District 4
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365236.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Kaffer, Jr., Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2320 E. Osborn Road
Zoning Classification: C-1, P-1
Council District: 4
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 was December 30, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have worked for Arizona Alcohol Traffic & Firearms for 3 years helping people
acquire liquor licenses and become Title Four certified to insure compliance with state
and local governmental laws & regulations regarding the sale and consumption of
alcohol.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts, golf
courses, special events, convenience/liquor/grocer stores & gas stations) similar to this
proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Tandy's - Data
Attachment B - Tandy's - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: TANDY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 9 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 2
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Restaurant 12 15 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 154.24 99.25
Violent Crimes 12.31 28.95 17.19
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 166
Total Violations 69 210
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1084003 1530 487 73 382
1085021 578 138 7 37
1107021 2550 450 73 215
1107022 1817 465 28 324
1108011 1965 414 124 372
1108022 1635 590 39 272
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: TANDY'S
2320 E OSBORN RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365236.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Kaffer, Jr., Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2320 E. Osborn Road
Zoning Classification: C-1, P-1
Council District: 4
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 was December 30, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have worked for Arizona Alcohol Traffic & Firearms for 3 years helping people
acquire liquor licenses and become Title Four certified to insure compliance with state
and local governmental laws & regulations regarding the sale and consumption of
alcohol.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts, golf
courses, special events, convenience/liquor/grocer stores & gas stations) similar to this
proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Tandy's - Data
Attachment B - Tandy's - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: TANDY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 9 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 2
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Restaurant 12 15 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 154.24 99.25
Violent Crimes 12.31 28.95 17.19
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 166
Total Violations 69 210
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1084003 1530 487 73 382
1085021 578 138 7 37
1107021 2550 450 73 215
1107022 1817 465 28 324
1108011 1965 414 124 372
1108022 1635 590 39 272
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: TANDY'S
2320 E OSBORN RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - SS. Simon & Jude Roman Catholic Cathedral
Phoenix - District 5
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Daylee Magneson
Location
6351 N. 27th Avenue
Council District: 5
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
February 28, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 500 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Phoenix - District 5
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Daylee Magneson
Location
6351 N. 27th Avenue
Council District: 5
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
February 28, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 500 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - El Mananero Breakfast-Dinner-Carreta - District 5
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365022.
Summary
Applicant
Kevin Kramber, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2151 N. 83rd Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was January 2, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“1) I as the agent to the liquor license currently represent over 230+ licensees
statewide. 2) Owner has a clean background and has 10+ years in the restaurant
industry. 3) Owner will be a day-to-day operator with approved Title IV Basic &
Management 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 are a breakfast and lunch restaurant, and we want to be able to offer alcoholic
beverages to our legal drinking age customers to be able to enhance their dining
experience. The alcohol is merely an accessory to our primary purpose and is needed
to be competitive in the marketplace.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - El Mananero Breakfast-Dinner-Carreta - Data
Attachment B - El Mananero Breakfast-Dinner-Carreta - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: EL MANANERO BREAKFAST-
DINNER-CARRETA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 2
Liquor Store 9 9 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 4
Restaurant 12 15 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 156.1 192.35
Violent Crimes 12.31 31.02 50.53
*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 41 18
Total Violations 69 32
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0820182 2890 620 79 238
0820281 1563 268 22 523
0820282 2753 475 33 381
0830003 0 0 0 0
1125231 1995 0 76 537
1125232 0 0 0 0
1125233 2197 589 40 218
1125241 3141 492 170 952
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: EL MANANERO BREAKFAST-DINNER-CARRETA
2151 N 83RD AVE
Date: 11/21/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365022.
Summary
Applicant
Kevin Kramber, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2151 N. 83rd Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was January 2, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“1) I as the agent to the liquor license currently represent over 230+ licensees
statewide. 2) Owner has a clean background and has 10+ years in the restaurant
industry. 3) Owner will be a day-to-day operator with approved Title IV Basic &
Management 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 are a breakfast and lunch restaurant, and we want to be able to offer alcoholic
beverages to our legal drinking age customers to be able to enhance their dining
experience. The alcohol is merely an accessory to our primary purpose and is needed
to be competitive in the marketplace.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - El Mananero Breakfast-Dinner-Carreta - Data
Attachment B - El Mananero Breakfast-Dinner-Carreta - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: EL MANANERO BREAKFAST-
DINNER-CARRETA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 2
Liquor Store 9 9 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 4
Restaurant 12 15 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 156.1 192.35
Violent Crimes 12.31 31.02 50.53
*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 41 18
Total Violations 69 32
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0820182 2890 620 79 238
0820281 1563 268 22 523
0820282 2753 475 33 381
0830003 0 0 0 0
1125231 1995 0 76 537
1125232 0 0 0 0
1125233 2197 589 40 218
1125241 3141 492 170 952
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: EL MANANERO BREAKFAST-DINNER-CARRETA
2151 N 83RD AVE
Date: 11/21/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Filibertos Mexican Food - District 5
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366354.
Summary
Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2955 N. 91st Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 16, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have worked at two establishment where alcohol was sold (Walmart and a gas
station). I will be attending Arizona Title 4 Liquor Law training as well as my staff to
ensure the safety of my customers and the general public. I will provide a safe
environment for families to enjoy their meals. The service of alcoholic beverages is not
my priority it is to complement their meal.”
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 will be served as there is a grocery store in the complex and
other fast food locations that do not provide alcohol service with their food. My main
concern is to meet the needs of the community by offering alcoholic berverages to
complement the sales of my food. Food is my number one priority and focus. We have
a drive-thru however it is for food service only. Additionally, all staff members will be
trained in AZ liquor law to identify underage or intoxicated patrons and the steps to
handle these situations.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Filibertos Mexican Food - Data
Attachment B - Filibertos Mexican Food - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: FILIBERTOS MEXICAN FOOD
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 1 0
Restaurant 12 2 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 89.09 112.95
Violent Crimes 12.31 21.84 36.83
*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 41 79
Total Violations 71 147
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0820091 2139 401 18 477
0820092 2788 421 21 98
0820102 4166 823 8 448
0820162 4197 623 82 530
0820171 1887 192 18 229
0820181 2313 519 20 181
0820182 2890 620 79 238
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: FILIBERTOS MEXICAN FOOD
2955 N 91ST AVE
Date: 12/23/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366354.
Summary
Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2955 N. 91st Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 16, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have worked at two establishment where alcohol was sold (Walmart and a gas
station). I will be attending Arizona Title 4 Liquor Law training as well as my staff to
ensure the safety of my customers and the general public. I will provide a safe
environment for families to enjoy their meals. The service of alcoholic beverages is not
my priority it is to complement their meal.”
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 will be served as there is a grocery store in the complex and
other fast food locations that do not provide alcohol service with their food. My main
concern is to meet the needs of the community by offering alcoholic berverages to
complement the sales of my food. Food is my number one priority and focus. We have
a drive-thru however it is for food service only. Additionally, all staff members will be
trained in AZ liquor law to identify underage or intoxicated patrons and the steps to
handle these situations.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Filibertos Mexican Food - Data
Attachment B - Filibertos Mexican Food - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: FILIBERTOS MEXICAN FOOD
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 1 0
Restaurant 12 2 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 89.09 112.95
Violent Crimes 12.31 21.84 36.83
*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 41 79
Total Violations 71 147
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0820091 2139 401 18 477
0820092 2788 421 21 98
0820102 4166 823 8 448
0820162 4197 623 82 530
0820171 1887 192 18 229
0820181 2313 519 20 181
0820182 2890 620 79 238
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: FILIBERTOS MEXICAN FOOD
2955 N 91ST AVE
Date: 12/23/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham Phoenix West/Glendale -
District 5
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366382.
Summary
Applicant
Tammy Facer, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
9050 W. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 HGT/WVR PCD
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location was not previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 11, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“As the agent, I have knowledge of compliance, a strong understanding of local
regulations, and a commitment to responsible service, ensuring that all standards for
the liquor license are met.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Because it will improve the hotel's guest experience, bring additional visitors to the
area, create stronger support for nearby businesses, and provide a positive economic
and benefit to the community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham Phoenix West/Glendale - Data
Attachment B - La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham Phoenix West/Glendale - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: LA QUINTA INN & SUITES BY
WYNDHAM PHOENIX
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 4 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 71.2 93.84
Violent Crimes 12.31 14.57 15.28
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 57
Total Violations 70 91
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0820171 1887 192 18 229
0820173 3988 321 14 398
0820181 2313 519 20 181
0820281 1563 268 22 523
0820282 2753 475 33 381
0830002 2263 325 59 979
0830003 0 0 0 0
0830004 819 345 11 147
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: LA QUINTA INN & SUITES BY WYNDHAM PHOENIX
9050 W MCDOWELL RD
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
District 5
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366382.
Summary
Applicant
Tammy Facer, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
9050 W. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 HGT/WVR PCD
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location was not previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 11, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“As the agent, I have knowledge of compliance, a strong understanding of local
regulations, and a commitment to responsible service, ensuring that all standards for
the liquor license are met.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Because it will improve the hotel's guest experience, bring additional visitors to the
area, create stronger support for nearby businesses, and provide a positive economic
and benefit to the community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham Phoenix West/Glendale - Data
Attachment B - La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham Phoenix West/Glendale - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: LA QUINTA INN & SUITES BY
WYNDHAM PHOENIX
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 4 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 71.2 93.84
Violent Crimes 12.31 14.57 15.28
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 57
Total Violations 70 91
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0820171 1887 192 18 229
0820173 3988 321 14 398
0820181 2313 519 20 181
0820281 1563 268 22 523
0820282 2753 475 33 381
0830002 2263 325 59 979
0830003 0 0 0 0
0830004 819 345 11 147
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: LA QUINTA INN & SUITES BY WYNDHAM PHOENIX
9050 W MCDOWELL RD
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Sushinola Roll - District 5
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 363128.
Summary
Applicant
Juan Beltran, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3824 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: A-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was January 3, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
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.
Sushinola Roll (Series 12)
5930 W. McDowell Road, Ste. 103, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 24
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:
“Boosting the local economy with alcohol sales increases customer traffic, generating
more jobs and higher tax revenue for the city.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Attracting tourism and visitors by enhancing the experience with beverages to
strengthen the economy and promote new business on security place.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Sushinola Roll - Data
Attachment B - Sushinola Roll - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: SUSHINOLA ROLL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 2 0
Bar 6 4 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 1
Restaurant 12 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 189.75 174.09
Violent Crimes 12.31 50.47 49.15
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 20
Total Violations 70 32
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1091021 1914 98 62 906
1092001 0 0 1 0
1092002 1281 176 52 131
1092003 2212 134 68 106
1092004 1218 159 51 448
1101001 1160 59 58 533
1169001 2763 372 39 622
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: SUSHINOLA ROLL
3824 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 363128.
Summary
Applicant
Juan Beltran, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3824 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: A-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was January 3, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
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.
Sushinola Roll (Series 12)
5930 W. McDowell Road, Ste. 103, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 24
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:
“Boosting the local economy with alcohol sales increases customer traffic, generating
more jobs and higher tax revenue for the city.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Attracting tourism and visitors by enhancing the experience with beverages to
strengthen the economy and promote new business on security place.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Sushinola Roll - Data
Attachment B - Sushinola Roll - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: SUSHINOLA ROLL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 2 0
Bar 6 4 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 1
Restaurant 12 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 189.75 174.09
Violent Crimes 12.31 50.47 49.15
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 20
Total Violations 70 32
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1091021 1914 98 62 906
1092001 0 0 1 0
1092002 1281 176 52 131
1092003 2212 134 68 106
1092004 1218 159 51 448
1101001 1160 59 58 533
1169001 2763 372 39 622
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: SUSHINOLA ROLL
3824 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Save Our Schools Arizona Network (January 25,
2026) - District 6
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Matthew Gerber
Location
5601 N. 16th Street
Council District: 6
Function
Musical Performance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 25, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 904 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
2026) - District 6
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Matthew Gerber
Location
5601 N. 16th Street
Council District: 6
Function
Musical Performance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 25, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 904 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Save Our Schools Arizona Network (January 30,
2026) - District 6
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Matthew Gerber
Location
5601 N. 16th Street
Council District: 6
Function
Musical Performance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 30, 2026 - 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 904 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
2026) - District 6
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Matthew Gerber
Location
5601 N. 16th Street
Council District: 6
Function
Musical Performance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 30, 2026 - 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 904 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - AC Hotel Biltmore - District 6
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365103.
Summary
Applicant
Peter Schelstraete, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
2811 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: PCD
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was December 30, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes information about any
liquor license violations on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control,
and for locations within the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for
police service within the last 12 months for the address listed.
Hyatt Place & Hyatt House Scottsdale (Series 11)
18513 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Graduate Tucson (Series 11)
930 E. 2nd Street, Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Courtyard Tucson Williams Center (Series 11)
201 S. Williams Boulevard, Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Residence Inn Williams Centre (Series 7)
5400 E. Williams Circle, 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:
“With over 25 years experience in the hospitality industry, I currently hold an interest in
over 100 liquor licenses across various jurisdications within the country, all of which
have been maintained in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. This
level of involvement reflects not only a deep understanding of the legal and operational
responsibilities tied to liquor licensing but also my commitment to responsible service
and community standards.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The AC Hotel Biltmore is an established and reputable business that has consistently
provided quality accommodations and services to both local patrons and out-of town
guests. Issuing the license to the incoming entity ensures continuity of service without
disruption to employees, guests or the surrounding community. It supports local
employment and contributes to the areas economy while encouraging responsible
hospitality practices.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - AC Hotel Biltmore - Data
Attachment B - AC Hotel Biltmore - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: AC HOTEL BILTMORE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 17 8
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 1
Liquor Store 9 4 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 1
Hotel 11 7 5
Restaurant 12 90 56
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 94.69 140.44
Violent Crimes 12.31 9.15 11.88
*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 41 21
Total Violations 70 26
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1078002 1771 849 277 79
1083011 884 307 31 42
1083012 1555 525 75 108
1084002 1348 427 93 67
1084004 1540 380 246 135
1084005 989 109 57 230
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: AC HOTEL BILTMORE
2811 E CAMELBACK RD
Date: 11/25/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365103.
Summary
Applicant
Peter Schelstraete, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
2811 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: PCD
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was December 30, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes information about any
liquor license violations on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control,
and for locations within the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for
police service within the last 12 months for the address listed.
Hyatt Place & Hyatt House Scottsdale (Series 11)
18513 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Graduate Tucson (Series 11)
930 E. 2nd Street, Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Courtyard Tucson Williams Center (Series 11)
201 S. Williams Boulevard, Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Residence Inn Williams Centre (Series 7)
5400 E. Williams Circle, 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:
“With over 25 years experience in the hospitality industry, I currently hold an interest in
over 100 liquor licenses across various jurisdications within the country, all of which
have been maintained in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. This
level of involvement reflects not only a deep understanding of the legal and operational
responsibilities tied to liquor licensing but also my commitment to responsible service
and community standards.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The AC Hotel Biltmore is an established and reputable business that has consistently
provided quality accommodations and services to both local patrons and out-of town
guests. Issuing the license to the incoming entity ensures continuity of service without
disruption to employees, guests or the surrounding community. It supports local
employment and contributes to the areas economy while encouraging responsible
hospitality practices.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - AC Hotel Biltmore - Data
Attachment B - AC Hotel Biltmore - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: AC HOTEL BILTMORE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 17 8
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 1
Liquor Store 9 4 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 1
Hotel 11 7 5
Restaurant 12 90 56
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 94.69 140.44
Violent Crimes 12.31 9.15 11.88
*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 41 21
Total Violations 70 26
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1078002 1771 849 277 79
1083011 884 307 31 42
1083012 1555 525 75 108
1084002 1348 427 93 67
1084004 1540 380 246 135
1084005 989 109 57 230
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: AC HOTEL BILTMORE
2811 E CAMELBACK RD
Date: 11/25/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Narahara Restaurant - District 6
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365647.
Summary
Applicant
Huong Troung, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5651 N. 7th Street
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 9, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, and for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Mensho (Series 12)
805 N. Dobson Road, Ste. 115, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Mensho Ramen (Series 12)
5813 N. 7th Street, Ste. 140, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 15
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 operates two popular Japanese ramen restaurants, one in Phoenix and one
in Mesa. It is currently in the final stages of obtaining a third liquor license in Glendale.
Applicant has had years of experience operating restaurants with liquor licenses. Its
managers and staff will receive regular and comprehensive training in Arizona's
alcohol laws to ensure compliance.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The business will add another well-regarded and highly anticipated culinary choice to
central Phoenix. A liquor license is instrumental for the business to prosper.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Narahara Restaurant - Data
Attachment B - Narahara Restaurant - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: NARAHARA RESTAURANT
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 4 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 9 0
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 38 11
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 118.55 127.38
Violent Crimes 12.31 14.17 15.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 55
Total Violations 71 84
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1065012 1472 331 210 121
1066002 1827 640 71 48
1075001 942 355 22 43
1075002 1050 361 52 21
1076011 925 208 31 52
1076012 1255 262 47 84
1076013 997 362 76 88
1076021 1302 519 41 25
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: NARAHARA RESTAURANT
5651 N 7TH ST
Date: 12/23/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 365647.
Summary
Applicant
Huong Troung, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5651 N. 7th Street
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 9, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, and for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Mensho (Series 12)
805 N. Dobson Road, Ste. 115, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Mensho Ramen (Series 12)
5813 N. 7th Street, Ste. 140, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 15
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 operates two popular Japanese ramen restaurants, one in Phoenix and one
in Mesa. It is currently in the final stages of obtaining a third liquor license in Glendale.
Applicant has had years of experience operating restaurants with liquor licenses. Its
managers and staff will receive regular and comprehensive training in Arizona's
alcohol laws to ensure compliance.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The business will add another well-regarded and highly anticipated culinary choice to
central Phoenix. A liquor license is instrumental for the business to prosper.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Narahara Restaurant - Data
Attachment B - Narahara Restaurant - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: NARAHARA RESTAURANT
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 4 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 9 0
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 38 11
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 118.55 127.38
Violent Crimes 12.31 14.17 15.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 55
Total Violations 71 84
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1065012 1472 331 210 121
1066002 1827 640 71 48
1075001 942 355 22 43
1075002 1050 361 52 21
1076011 925 208 31 52
1076012 1255 262 47 84
1076013 997 362 76 88
1076021 1302 519 41 25
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: NARAHARA RESTAURANT
5651 N 7TH ST
Date: 12/23/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Vektor Vodka - District 7
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 369072.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
2440 W. Lincoln Street, Ste. 160 VV
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 January 17, 2026.
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: information about any
liquor license violations on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control,
and for locations within the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for
police service within the last 12 months for the address listed.
Vektor Vodka (Series 4)
5302 W. Buckeye Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 7
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:
“Owner will continue to abide by Title 4 liquor laws. Currently the owner of the existing
Vektor Vodka held at a different location in Phoenix. However, are will continue
operations at a new location.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 369072.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
2440 W. Lincoln Street, Ste. 160 VV
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 January 17, 2026.
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: information about any
liquor license violations on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control,
and for locations within the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for
police service within the last 12 months for the address listed.
Vektor Vodka (Series 4)
5302 W. Buckeye Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 7
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:
“Owner will continue to abide by Title 4 liquor laws. Currently the owner of the existing
Vektor Vodka held at a different location in Phoenix. However, are will continue
operations at a new location.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - The Farish House - District 7
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366649.
Summary
Applicant
Gregory Cohen, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
816 N. 3rd Street
Zoning Classification: DTC - Evans Churchill West HP
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 9, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I've been either in or working within the restarant industry most of my life. I also
completed the required certifications, such as, liquor management (Arizona title 4
management liquor law training) and Title 4 basic 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:
“I respect our liquor laws and understand the responsibility that is required to sell and
serve alcohol.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - The Farish House - Data
Attachment B - The Farish House - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: THE FARISH HOUSE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 4 3
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 6 5
Bar 6 42 13
Beer and Wine Bar 7 10 5
Liquor Store 9 5 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 5
Hotel 11 8 3
Restaurant 12 68 24
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 269 359.76
Violent Crimes 12.31 60.05 77.49
*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 41 57
Total Violations 70 103
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1130002 1364 179 221 139
1131001 1929 146 155 743
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1132021 740 87 52 190
1132022 1347 118 99 594
1132041 1507 221 53 310
1132042 506 63 11 131
1140003 1025 304 49 114
1141001 2605 227 111 276
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: THE FARISH HOUSE
816 N 3RD ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366649.
Summary
Applicant
Gregory Cohen, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
816 N. 3rd Street
Zoning Classification: DTC - Evans Churchill West HP
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 9, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I've been either in or working within the restarant industry most of my life. I also
completed the required certifications, such as, liquor management (Arizona title 4
management liquor law training) and Title 4 basic 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:
“I respect our liquor laws and understand the responsibility that is required to sell and
serve alcohol.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - The Farish House - Data
Attachment B - The Farish House - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: THE FARISH HOUSE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 4 3
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 6 5
Bar 6 42 13
Beer and Wine Bar 7 10 5
Liquor Store 9 5 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 5
Hotel 11 8 3
Restaurant 12 68 24
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 269 359.76
Violent Crimes 12.31 60.05 77.49
*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 41 57
Total Violations 70 103
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1130002 1364 179 221 139
1131001 1929 146 155 743
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1132021 740 87 52 190
1132022 1347 118 99 594
1132041 1507 221 53 310
1132042 506 63 11 131
1140003 1025 304 49 114
1141001 2605 227 111 276
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: THE FARISH HOUSE
816 N 3RD ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Miel de Agave - District 7
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 367251.
Summary
Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
705 N. 1st Street, Ste. 110
Zoning Classification: DTC-Evans Churchill West
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location is currently
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 6 - Bar, liquor license.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 11, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We have experience in the restaurant liquor industry and have knowledge of the
Arizona Liquor Laws as required. The staff at this location will receive or have recieved
liquor law training to ensure they are familiar with the laws; specifically which ID's are
valid, checking young looking customers ID, preventing obvious intoxication and
protecting the health, safety and welfare of our customers and any Arizona citizen by
taking pro-active action.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The owners applying for the series 12 have been operating on a series 6 liquor
license however the sales of food exceed 60% and we no longer have televisions or
live bands. On the weekends we will have a vocalist or guitarist during dinner for
ambiance. We will continue to provide upscale dining experience for our guest. The
alcohol is to complement our food menu. We will have a DJ on Saturday from 8pm -
10pm.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Miel de Agave - Data
Attachment B - Miel de Agave - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: MIEL DE AGAVE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 5 3
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 7 6
Bar 6 43 24
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 6
Liquor Store 9 6 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 14 4
Hotel 11 8 4
Restaurant 12 76 38
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 264.67 405.41
Violent Crimes 12.31 55.75 83.65
*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 41 53
Total Violations 72 89
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1130002 1364 179 221 139
1131001 1929 146 155 743
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1132021 740 87 52 190
1132022 1347 118 99 594
1132041 1507 221 53 310
1141001 2605 227 111 276
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: MIEL DE AGAVE
705 N 1ST ST
Date: 12/24/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 367251.
Summary
Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
705 N. 1st Street, Ste. 110
Zoning Classification: DTC-Evans Churchill West
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location is currently
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 6 - Bar, liquor license.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is January 11, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We have experience in the restaurant liquor industry and have knowledge of the
Arizona Liquor Laws as required. The staff at this location will receive or have recieved
liquor law training to ensure they are familiar with the laws; specifically which ID's are
valid, checking young looking customers ID, preventing obvious intoxication and
protecting the health, safety and welfare of our customers and any Arizona citizen by
taking pro-active action.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The owners applying for the series 12 have been operating on a series 6 liquor
license however the sales of food exceed 60% and we no longer have televisions or
live bands. On the weekends we will have a vocalist or guitarist during dinner for
ambiance. We will continue to provide upscale dining experience for our guest. The
alcohol is to complement our food menu. We will have a DJ on Saturday from 8pm -
10pm.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Miel de Agave - Data
Attachment B - Miel de Agave - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: MIEL DE AGAVE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 5 3
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 7 6
Bar 6 43 24
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 6
Liquor Store 9 6 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 14 4
Hotel 11 8 4
Restaurant 12 76 38
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 264.67 405.41
Violent Crimes 12.31 55.75 83.65
*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 41 53
Total Violations 72 89
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1130002 1364 179 221 139
1131001 1929 146 155 743
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1132021 740 87 52 190
1132022 1347 118 99 594
1132041 1507 221 53 310
1141001 2605 227 111 276
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: MIEL DE AGAVE
705 N 1ST ST
Date: 12/24/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Alwun House Foundation - District 8
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Dana Johnson
Location
415 E. Grant Street
Council District: 8
Function
Dance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 24, 2026 - 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 350 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Dana Johnson
Location
415 E. Grant Street
Council District: 8
Function
Dance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
January 24, 2026 - 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 350 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Valiant College Preparatory - District 8
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Douglas, Jr.
Location
1601 E. Jackson Street
Council District: 8
Function
Concert
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
February 6, 2026 - 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. / 500 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Douglas, Jr.
Location
1601 E. Jackson Street
Council District: 8
Function
Concert
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
February 6, 2026 - 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. / 500 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Alcove - District 8
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366525.
Summary
Applicant
Mariah Coen, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1002 E. Pierce Street, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP
Council District: 8
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 was January 5, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for additional time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I run Alcove with a strong commitment to safety and compliance. I've completed the
required training, follow strict ID and product-control procedures, and maintain
accurate records. As an on-site owner-operator, I ensure the space is secure and
responsibly managed at all times.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Alcove provides a safe, well-managed neighborhood retail space offering responsibly
curated beer and wine for off-premises consumption alongside retail and community
events. Granting this license supports local demand, strengthens walkability, and
enhances the vibrancy of the surrounding community. With strong compliance
practices and daily on-site oversight, we serve the neighborhood in a responsible,
community-forward way that meets both the public convenience and the best interests
of the community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Alcove - Data
Attachment B - Alcove - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: ALCOVE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 4 3
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 6 0
Bar 6 31 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 7 1
Liquor Store 9 5 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 17 8
Hotel 11 4 1
Restaurant 12 60 6
Crime Data
*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 41 150
Total Violations 70 248
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1132011 1204 171 47 318
1132012 902 154 47 139
1132021 740 87 52 190
1132022 1347 118 99 594
1132041 1507 221 53 310
1132042 506 63 11 131
1140001 382 16 49 96
1140003 1025 304 49 114
1141001 2605 227 111 276
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: ALCOVE
1002 E PIERCE ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366525.
Summary
Applicant
Mariah Coen, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1002 E. Pierce Street, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP
Council District: 8
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 was January 5, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a request for additional time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I run Alcove with a strong commitment to safety and compliance. I've completed the
required training, follow strict ID and product-control procedures, and maintain
accurate records. As an on-site owner-operator, I ensure the space is secure and
responsibly managed at all times.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Alcove provides a safe, well-managed neighborhood retail space offering responsibly
curated beer and wine for off-premises consumption alongside retail and community
events. Granting this license supports local demand, strengthens walkability, and
enhances the vibrancy of the surrounding community. With strong compliance
practices and daily on-site oversight, we serve the neighborhood in a responsible,
community-forward way that meets both the public convenience and the best interests
of the community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - Alcove - Data
Attachment B - Alcove - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: ALCOVE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 4 3
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 6 0
Bar 6 31 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 7 1
Liquor Store 9 5 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 17 8
Hotel 11 4 1
Restaurant 12 60 6
Crime Data
*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 41 150
Total Violations 70 248
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1131002 2026 50 492 845
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1132011 1204 171 47 318
1132012 902 154 47 139
1132021 740 87 52 190
1132022 1347 118 99 594
1132041 1507 221 53 310
1132042 506 63 11 131
1140001 382 16 49 96
1140003 1025 304 49 114
1141001 2605 227 111 276
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: ALCOVE
1002 E PIERCE ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Aloft Hotel Phoenix Airport - District 8
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 368599.
Summary
Applicant
Kekoa Morton, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
4450 E. Washington Street
Zoning Classification: C-2 M-R TOD-1
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. 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 January 19, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“InnVentures F&B Services, LLC holds a number of retail liquor licenses in other
States and has an unblemished compliance track record in connection with such liquor
licenses. InnVentures F&B Services LLC will implement its internal compliance policies
at the Aloft Hotel Phoenix Airport and will comply with all state and local training and
responsible beverage service requirements to ensure that the sale of alcoholic
beverages is done in a safe and responsible manner .”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Hotel is conveniently located the Phoenix Airport. There are thousands of visitors
each day to the area and a high demand for full-service restaurants of this nature. The
area includes a mixture of business and commercial uses that the community is
already accustomed to. The convenience pf the Hotel would be greatly diminished if its
guests and members of the general public were not able to enjoy an alcoholic
beverage while dining at the Hotel. Furthermore, the ability to offer a full selection of
alcoholic beverages adds to the viability of the Hotel's business model.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Aloft Hotel Phoenix Airport - Data
Attachment B - Aloft Hotel Phoenix Airport - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: ALOFT HOTEL PHOENIX AIRPORT
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 3 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Conveyance 8 2 0
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Hotel 11 5 4
Restaurant 12 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 87.81 114.01
Violent Crimes 12.31 17.59 25.47
*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 41 41
Total Violations 70 59
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1112031 2180 4 39 272
1137021 678 150 13 206
1137022 1711 178 13 580
1138001 0 0 0 0
1138003 247 0 131 89
1138004 423 0 13 74
1138006 0 0 1 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: ALOFT HOTEL PHOENIX AIRPORT
4450 E WASHINGTON ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 368599.
Summary
Applicant
Kekoa Morton, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
4450 E. Washington Street
Zoning Classification: C-2 M-R TOD-1
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. 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 January 19, 2026.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“InnVentures F&B Services, LLC holds a number of retail liquor licenses in other
States and has an unblemished compliance track record in connection with such liquor
licenses. InnVentures F&B Services LLC will implement its internal compliance policies
at the Aloft Hotel Phoenix Airport and will comply with all state and local training and
responsible beverage service requirements to ensure that the sale of alcoholic
beverages is done in a safe and responsible manner .”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Hotel is conveniently located the Phoenix Airport. There are thousands of visitors
each day to the area and a high demand for full-service restaurants of this nature. The
area includes a mixture of business and commercial uses that the community is
already accustomed to. The convenience pf the Hotel would be greatly diminished if its
guests and members of the general public were not able to enjoy an alcoholic
beverage while dining at the Hotel. Furthermore, the ability to offer a full selection of
alcoholic beverages adds to the viability of the Hotel's business model.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Aloft Hotel Phoenix Airport - Data
Attachment B - Aloft Hotel Phoenix Airport - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: ALOFT HOTEL PHOENIX AIRPORT
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 3 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Conveyance 8 2 0
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Hotel 11 5 4
Restaurant 12 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 87.81 114.01
Violent Crimes 12.31 17.59 25.47
*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 41 41
Total Violations 70 59
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1112031 2180 4 39 272
1137021 678 150 13 206
1137022 1711 178 13 580
1138001 0 0 0 0
1138003 247 0 131 89
1138004 423 0 13 74
1138006 0 0 1 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: ALOFT HOTEL PHOENIX AIRPORT
4450 E WASHINGTON ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - 24th St Fast Fill Market - District 8
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366299.
Summary
Applicant
Kavon Ahmadi, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
102 S. 24th Street
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for 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 was January 6, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have previous experience operating a convenience store that sells liquor. My motto
is to uphold the law and serve customers in a responsible manner.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This particular business location previously had a liquor permit. Regular customers
look to our facility as a sage and convenient location to buy alcoholic beverages.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - 24th St Fast Fill Market - Data
Attachment B - 24th St Fast Fill Market - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: 24TH ST FAST FILL MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 2 1
Conveyance 8 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 97.02 90.33
Violent Crimes 12.31 46.92 59.76
*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 41 45
Total Violations 70 81
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1133011 1274 34 201 873
1133012 1069 34 90 319
1138006 0 0 1 0
1138007 481 37 36 240
1139001 171 0 8 124
1139002 1159 47 77 422
9810001 696 0 0 2
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: 24TH ST FAST FILL MARKET
102 S 24TH ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366299.
Summary
Applicant
Kavon Ahmadi, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
102 S. 24th Street
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for 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 was January 6, 2026. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications, and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have previous experience operating a convenience store that sells liquor. My motto
is to uphold the law and serve customers in a responsible manner.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This particular business location previously had a liquor permit. Regular customers
look to our facility as a sage and convenient location to buy alcoholic beverages.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application, noting that the applicant must resolve
any pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements and be in compliance
with the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - 24th St Fast Fill Market - Data
Attachment B - 24th St Fast Fill Market - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: 24TH ST FAST FILL MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 2 1
Conveyance 8 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 97.02 90.33
Violent Crimes 12.31 46.92 59.76
*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 41 45
Total Violations 70 81
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1133011 1274 34 201 873
1133012 1069 34 90 319
1138006 0 0 1 0
1138007 481 37 36 240
1139001 171 0 8 124
1139002 1159 47 77 422
9810001 696 0 0 2
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: 24TH ST FAST FILL MARKET
102 S 24TH ST
Date: 12/15/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Bull Shooters - District 1
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
3337 W. Peoria Avenue
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Bull Shooters - Data
Attachment B - Bull Shooters - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: BULL SHOOTERS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 1
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 15 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 262.57 264.22
Violent Crimes 12.31 43.07 34.81
*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 41 91
Total Violations 72 177
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042032 1454 387 17 134
1042051 1324 539 47 89
1042052 2410 76 64 453
1042053 1625 264 18 20
1042054 1560 187 71 626
1043012 1885 605 31 309
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: BULL SHOOTERS
3337 W PEORIA AVE
Date: 12/26/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
3337 W. Peoria Avenue
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Bull Shooters - Data
Attachment B - Bull Shooters - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: BULL SHOOTERS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 1
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 15 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 262.57 264.22
Violent Crimes 12.31 43.07 34.81
*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 41 91
Total Violations 72 177
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042032 1454 387 17 134
1042051 1324 539 47 89
1042052 2410 76 64 453
1042053 1625 264 18 20
1042054 1560 187 71 626
1043012 1885 605 31 309
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: BULL SHOOTERS
3337 W PEORIA AVE
Date: 12/26/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Padre Murphy's - District 1
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
4338 W. Bell Road, Ste. 1-4
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Padre Murphy's - Data
Attachment B - Padre Murphy's - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: PADRE MURPHY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 6 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 52.28 95.22
Violent Crimes 12.31 7.08 15.28
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 33
Total Violations 72 59
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042251 1988 402 1 142
1042253 805 272 12 65
1042261 1407 66 27 572
6181001 1908 536 20 61
6181003 1005 391 10 29
6183001 1257 408 5 80
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: PADRE MURPHY'S
4338 W BELL RD
Date: 12/26/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
4338 W. Bell Road, Ste. 1-4
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Padre Murphy's - Data
Attachment B - Padre Murphy's - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: PADRE MURPHY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 6 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 52.28 95.22
Violent Crimes 12.31 7.08 15.28
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 41 33
Total Violations 72 59
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042251 1988 402 1 142
1042253 805 272 12 65
1042261 1407 66 27 572
6181001 1908 536 20 61
6181003 1005 391 10 29
6183001 1257 408 5 80
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: PADRE MURPHY'S
4338 W BELL RD
Date: 12/26/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Arena Sports Grill - District 2
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
6245 E. Bell Road, Ste 101-104
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. One valid letter in support of the issuance of the
permit was received and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The letter is from a
local resident who does not have any issues with the location having off track
wagering. They believe the location has had off track betting for several years and
know of no problems with the location due to off track betting.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Arena Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - Arena Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: ARENA SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 2 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 22.66 12.42
Violent Crimes 12.31 2.46 1.69
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 20
Total Violations 69 27
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032171 1134 369 45 24
1032172 1165 510 73 160
1032192 1226 374 27 79
1032193 671 385 47 25
6152012 6102 515 722 1020
6199003 1838 575 26 67
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: ARENA SPORTS GRILL
6245 E BELL RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
6245 E. Bell Road, Ste 101-104
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. One valid letter in support of the issuance of the
permit was received and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The letter is from a
local resident who does not have any issues with the location having off track
wagering. They believe the location has had off track betting for several years and
know of no problems with the location due to off track betting.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Arena Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - Arena Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: ARENA SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 2 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 22.66 12.42
Violent Crimes 12.31 2.46 1.69
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 20
Total Violations 69 27
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032171 1134 369 45 24
1032172 1165 510 73 160
1032192 1226 374 27 79
1032193 671 385 47 25
6152012 6102 515 722 1020
6199003 1838 575 26 67
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: ARENA SPORTS GRILL
6245 E BELL RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - The Burg Sports Grill - District 2
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
751 E. Union Hills Drive
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired November 19, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - The Burg Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - The Burg Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: THE BURG SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Restaurant 12 5 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 89.78 67.62
Violent Crimes 12.31 14.09 8.91
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 54
Total Violations 69 96
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6167001 2313 640 41 164
6168001 1679 384 17 128
6168003 2033 539 17 457
6189001 1838 449 37 201
6189002 2823 478 30 827
6190001 589 333 6 15
6190002 1059 460 29 112
6190003 1135 298 19 112
6191002 1384 31 92 103
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: THE BURG SPORTS GRILL
751 E UNION HILLS DR
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
751 E. Union Hills Drive
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired November 19, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - The Burg Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - The Burg Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: THE BURG SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Restaurant 12 5 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 89.78 67.62
Violent Crimes 12.31 14.09 8.91
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 54
Total Violations 69 96
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6167001 2313 640 41 164
6168001 1679 384 17 128
6168003 2033 539 17 457
6189001 1838 449 37 201
6189002 2823 478 30 827
6190001 589 333 6 15
6190002 1059 460 29 112
6190003 1135 298 19 112
6191002 1384 31 92 103
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: THE BURG SPORTS GRILL
751 E UNION HILLS DR
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Casey Jones Grill - District 2
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
2848 E. Bell Road, Ste. 111 & 112
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Casey Jones Grill - Data
Attachment B - Casey Jones Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CASEY JONES GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Restaurant 12 14 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 127.76 117.51
Violent Crimes 12.31 25.39 27.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 62
Total Violations 69 108
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033032 1423 526 48 249
1033041 2061 216 78 671
1033042 1200 27 48 284
1033051 1555 265 37 486
1033052 2177 371 29 554
6195001 1237 357 18 69
6195002 2117 605 14 19
6195003 2528 759 86 475
6196021 1901 596 29 269
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: CASEY JONES GRILL
2848 E BELL RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
2848 E. Bell Road, Ste. 111 & 112
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Casey Jones Grill - Data
Attachment B - Casey Jones Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CASEY JONES GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1
Restaurant 12 14 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 127.76 117.51
Violent Crimes 12.31 25.39 27.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 62
Total Violations 69 108
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033032 1423 526 48 249
1033041 2061 216 78 671
1033042 1200 27 48 284
1033051 1555 265 37 486
1033052 2177 371 29 554
6195001 1237 357 18 69
6195002 2117 605 14 19
6195003 2528 759 86 475
6196021 1901 596 29 269
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: CASEY JONES GRILL
2848 E BELL RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Connolly's Sports Grill - District 2
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
2605 W. Carefree Highway, Ste. 140
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Connolly's Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - Connolly's Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CONNOLLY'S SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0
Restaurant 12 6 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 23.19 24.41
Violent Crimes 12.31 3.18 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 41 3
Total Violations 69 5
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6106001 80 36 17 0
6106003 1922 528 27 133
6113004 1767 465 33 51
6113005 2501 532 70 0
6113006 749 205 9 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: CONNOLLY'S SPORTS GRILL
2605 W CAREFREE HWY
Date: 9/12/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
2605 W. Carefree Highway, Ste. 140
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Connolly's Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - Connolly's Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CONNOLLY'S SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0
Restaurant 12 6 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 23.19 24.41
Violent Crimes 12.31 3.18 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 41 3
Total Violations 69 5
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6106001 80 36 17 0
6106003 1922 528 27 133
6113004 1767 465 33 51
6113005 2501 532 70 0
6113006 749 205 9 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: CONNOLLY'S SPORTS GRILL
2605 W CAREFREE HWY
Date: 9/12/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Longshots Bar & Grill - District 2
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
13610 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 28 & 31
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Longshots Bar & Grill - Data
Attachment B - Longshots Bar & Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: LONGSHOTS BAR & GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 0
Wholesaler 4 5 0
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 32 12
Craft Distiller 18 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 13.82 23.77
Violent Crimes 12.31 1.27 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 40 19
Total Violations 69 26
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032071 1242 389 51 23
1032072 973 325 34 69
1032201 765 385 46 26
1032202 979 336 176 45
2168161 2299 576 378 112
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: LONGSHOTS BAR & GRILL
13610 N SCOTTSDALE RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
13610 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 28 & 31
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Longshots Bar & Grill - Data
Attachment B - Longshots Bar & Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: LONGSHOTS BAR & GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 0
Wholesaler 4 5 0
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 32 12
Craft Distiller 18 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 13.82 23.77
Violent Crimes 12.31 1.27 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 40 19
Total Violations 69 26
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032071 1242 389 51 23
1032072 973 325 34 69
1032201 765 385 46 26
1032202 979 336 176 45
2168161 2299 576 378 112
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: LONGSHOTS BAR & GRILL
13610 N SCOTTSDALE RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Whiskey & Wings - District 2
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
34406 N. Black Mountain Parkway
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Whiskey & Wings - Data
Attachment B - Whiskey & Wings - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: WHISKEY & WINGS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 2 2
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 1
Restaurant 12 8 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 3.42 8.81
Violent Crimes 12.31 0.37 0.74
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 1
Total Violations 69 1
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0304023 1823 793 222 59
6125002 1605 599 77 23
6125003 874 355 32 26
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: WHISKEY & WINGS
34406 N BLACK MOUNTAIN PKWY
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
34406 N. Black Mountain Parkway
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 10, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Whiskey & Wings - Data
Attachment B - Whiskey & Wings - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: WHISKEY & WINGS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 2 2
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 1
Restaurant 12 8 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 3.42 8.81
Violent Crimes 12.31 0.37 0.74
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 1
Total Violations 69 1
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
0304023 1823 793 222 59
6125002 1605 599 77 23
6125003 874 355 32 26
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: WHISKEY & WINGS
34406 N BLACK MOUNTAIN PKWY
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Liberty Tavern - District 3
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
10618 N. Cave Creek Road, Ste. 104
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Liberty Tavern - Data
Attachment B - Liberty Tavern - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: LIBERTY TAVERN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 1 0
Restaurant 12 3 1
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 64.27 85.35
Violent Crimes 12.31 12.6 16.77
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 69
Total Violations 69 115
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1037021 822 213 42 157
1037022 1194 426 77 40
1037023 1541 224 69 93
1047012 972 374 84 103
1047013 610 316 124 151
1047021 780 85 27 150
1047024 455 259 33 60
1048012 1609 438 32 208
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: LIBERTY TAVERN
10618 N CAVE CREEK RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
10618 N. Cave Creek Road, Ste. 104
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Liberty Tavern - Data
Attachment B - Liberty Tavern - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: LIBERTY TAVERN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 1 0
Restaurant 12 3 1
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 64.27 85.35
Violent Crimes 12.31 12.6 16.77
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 69
Total Violations 69 115
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1037021 822 213 42 157
1037022 1194 426 77 40
1037023 1541 224 69 93
1047012 972 374 84 103
1047013 610 316 124 151
1047021 780 85 27 150
1047024 455 259 33 60
1048012 1609 438 32 208
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: LIBERTY TAVERN
10618 N CAVE CREEK RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Bleacher's Sports Grill - District 6
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
15410 S. Mountain Parkway, Ste. 109
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 6
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 11, 2025. One valid letter protesting the issuance of the
permit was received and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The letter is from two
local residents who feel that the issuance of the permit will negatively affect property
value, may cause an increase in noise, drug-use, and crime in the area, and would not
add value to the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Staff gave careful consideration to the protest letter received; however, after reviewing
the application in its entirety, staff is recommending approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Bleacher's Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - Bleacher's Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: BLEACHERS SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 18 13
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 50.23 61.57
Violent Crimes 12.31 6.26 9.02
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 3
Total Violations 69 4
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167122 1955 502 15 223
1167131 630 237 90 72
1167133 1151 453 10 60
1167135 1294 312 29 156
1167194 1373 576 7 92
1167202 1180 172 41 380
1167203 1429 320 66 89
1167212 1598 640 51 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: BLEACHERS SPORTS GRILL
15410 S MOUNTAIN PKWY
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
15410 S. Mountain Parkway, Ste. 109
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 6
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 11, 2025. One valid letter protesting the issuance of the
permit was received and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The letter is from two
local residents who feel that the issuance of the permit will negatively affect property
value, may cause an increase in noise, drug-use, and crime in the area, and would not
add value to the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Staff gave careful consideration to the protest letter received; however, after reviewing
the application in its entirety, staff is recommending approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Bleacher's Sports Grill - Data
Attachment B - Bleacher's Sports Grill - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: BLEACHERS SPORTS GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 18 13
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 50.23 61.57
Violent Crimes 12.31 6.26 9.02
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 3
Total Violations 69 4
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167122 1955 502 15 223
1167131 630 237 90 72
1167133 1151 453 10 60
1167135 1294 312 29 156
1167194 1373 576 7 92
1167202 1180 172 41 380
1167203 1429 320 66 89
1167212 1598 640 51 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: BLEACHERS SPORTS GRILL
15410 S MOUNTAIN PKWY
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - RT O'Sullivan's - District 6
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
7575 N. 16th Street, Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: PSC PCD
Council District: 6
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - RT O'Sullivan's - Data
Attachment B - RT O'Sullivan's - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: RT O'SULLIVAN'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 0
Restaurant 12 11 3
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 63.05 79.83
Violent Crimes 12.31 6.92 7.32
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 19
Total Violations 69 37
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051022 1835 777 58 331
1051023 1091 589 89 49
1051024 1173 368 58 2
1063001 1881 242 59 253
1063002 1402 408 51 22
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: RT O'SULLIVAN'S
7575 N 16TH ST
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
7575 N. 16th Street, Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: PSC PCD
Council District: 6
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - RT O'Sullivan's - Data
Attachment B - RT O'Sullivan's - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: RT O'SULLIVAN'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 0
Restaurant 12 11 3
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 63.05 79.83
Violent Crimes 12.31 6.92 7.32
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 19
Total Violations 69 37
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051022 1835 777 58 331
1051023 1091 589 89 49
1051024 1173 368 58 2
1063001 1881 242 59 253
1063002 1402 408 51 22
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: RT O'SULLIVAN'S
7575 N 16TH ST
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - American Legion Post #1 - District 7
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
14 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
364 N. 7th Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-3 CMOD ACOD
Council District: 7
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - American Legion Post #1 - Data
Attachment B - American Legion Post #1 - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: AMERICAN LEGION POST #1
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 0
Microbrewery 3 5 2
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 6 0
Bar 6 48 10
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 0
Liquor Store 9 5 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 6
Hotel 11 7 1
Restaurant 12 103 15
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 245.35 283.01
Violent Crimes 12.31 72.42 86.62
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 80
Total Violations 69 147
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 671 102 83 94
1129003 1168 99 40 80
1129004 1279 82 91 706
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1131001 1929 146 155 743
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1141001 2605 227 111 276
1143011 911 80 49 374
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: AMERICAN LEGION POST #1
364 N 7TH AVE
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
14 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
364 N. 7th Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-3 CMOD ACOD
Council District: 7
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 9, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - American Legion Post #1 - Data
Attachment B - American Legion Post #1 - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: AMERICAN LEGION POST #1
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 0
Microbrewery 3 5 2
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 6 0
Bar 6 48 10
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 0
Liquor Store 9 5 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 6
Hotel 11 7 1
Restaurant 12 103 15
Club 14 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 245.35 283.01
Violent Crimes 12.31 72.42 86.62
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 80
Total Violations 69 147
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 671 102 83 94
1129003 1168 99 40 80
1129004 1279 82 91 706
1130001 2898 331 199 515
1131001 1929 146 155 743
1131003 2654 2 355 297
1141001 2605 227 111 276
1143011 911 80 49 374
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: AMERICAN LEGION POST #1
364 N 7TH AVE
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Gallagher's Food & Fun - District 8
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
3220 E. Baseline Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 8
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 11, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Gallagher's Food & Fun - Data
Attachment B - Gallagher's Food & Fun - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: GALLAGHER'S FOOD & FUN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 1
Liquor Store 9 1 0
Restaurant 12 5 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 38.37 65.81
Violent Crimes 12.31 5.65 8.28
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 9
Total Violations 69 11
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1162032 2367 392 111 98
1162033 3169 684 124 1054
1167381 1934 731 126 60
1167382 1631 330 43 121
1167383 3038 901 29 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: GALLAGHER'S FOOD & FUN
3220 E BASELINE RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Request for an Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel
Wagering Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on
horse races conducted at Turf Paradise.
Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise
Location
3220 E. Baseline Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 8
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired December 11, 2025. No protest or support letters were received within
the 20-day public comment period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment A - Gallagher's Food & Fun - Data
Attachment B - Gallagher's Food & Fun - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: GALLAGHER'S FOOD & FUN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 1
Liquor Store 9 1 0
Restaurant 12 5 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 38.37 65.81
Violent Crimes 12.31 5.65 8.28
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 40 9
Total Violations 69 11
Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1162032 2367 392 111 98
1162033 3169 684 124 1054
1167381 1934 731 126 60
1167382 1631 330 43 121
1167383 3038 901 29 0
Average 1601 393 60 177
Liquor License Map: GALLAGHER'S FOOD & FUN
3220 E BASELINE RD
Date: 11/20/2025
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Liquor License - La
Cruda Mariscos y Clamatos - District 8
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366646.
Summary
Applicant
Rigoberto Duran, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2822 N. 32nd Street, Ste. 3
Zoning Classification: C-2
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 January 9, 2025.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I'm 40 yrs old with years of experience handling liquor. I follow the rules and
regulations of the city and county to handle the liquor properly. I have an accounting
team that will be doing the reports and payments automatically.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on the Finance Department
and Police Department recommendations for disapproval. The Police Department
disapproval is based on the applicant's criminal history and the applicant's failure to
disclose the criminal history on the application. The applicant has not demonstrated
the capability, qualifications, and reliability to hold and control a liquor license. Staff
also notes that the applicant must resolve any pending City of Phoenix building and
zoning requirements and be in compliance with the City of Phoenix Code and
Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos - Police Department Recommendation
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Police Department Liquor License Disapproval Recommendation
Application Information
Business Name La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos District 8
LLC
Business Location 2822 North 32nd Street Suite 3
Applicant Name Rigoberto Duran Series Type 12(AOC)
The Police Department recommends denial of this liquor license application as the
LIQUOR LICENSE DISAPPROVAL FORM
applicant has not proven to be capable, qualified, and reliable to hold a Series 12 liquor
license. The owner and agent of La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos LLC, Rigoberto Duran has
made false statements on the application and, within the last five years has been convicted
of a crime.
The Police Department recommends disapproval of this liquor license application for
the following reasons:
A.R.S. 4-203.A states “A spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after satisfactory
showing of the capability, qualification and reliability of the applicant…”
A.R.S. 4-210.A.3 states “The licensee or controlling person knowingly files with the
department an application or other document that contains material information that is false
or misleading…”
THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE, QUALIFIED OR RELIABLE
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
Rigoberto Duran, the owner of La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos LLC and applicant for a
series 12 liquor license was arrested on January 16, 2024, by Phoenix Police officers for
misconduct involving weapons. The disposition date of that case (CR2024-102486-001)
was July 8, 2024, with a finding of guilty. Section four, question one of the personal
information questionnaire on the state liquor application asks “Have you been cited,
arrested, indicted, convicted or required to appear in court for violation of ANY criminal law
or ordinance, regardless of the disposition, even if dismissed or expunged, within the last 5
years?”. Mr. Duran answered “no”. Detective Augustine attempted to contact the applicant
to discuss this discrepancy on December 11, 2025 and as of the date of this writing, has
not received a return call. Detective Augustine has multiple questions regarding this
application regarding Mr. Duran’s criminal history, residence location and what his true and
lawful name is however, none of the discrepancies were able to be resolved due to the lack
of communication by the applicant.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS:
Additionally, the city questionnaire was due to the Phoenix City Clerks office by November
24, 2025. It was not received by the City Clerks office until December 4,2025. This
Police Department Liquor License Disapproval Recommendation
Application Information
Business Name La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos District 8
LLC
Business Location 2822 North 32nd Street Suite 3
Applicant Name Rigoberto Duran Series Type 12(AOC)
tardiness along with the lack of communication by the applicant does not allow the Police
LIQUOR LICENSE DISAPPROVAL FORM
Department to conduct a thorough review of the application/ applicant.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the applicant has failed to show that they are
reliable, capable or qualified and issuance of a liquor license for this applicant would not be
in the best interest of the community.
This recommendation for disapproval is submitted by: Det. T. AUGUSTINE #10117
SIGNATURES
Administrative Licensing Investigator
Liquor Enforcement Detail Supervisor
Report
Cruda Mariscos y Clamatos - District 8
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 366646.
Summary
Applicant
Rigoberto Duran, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2822 N. 32nd Street, Ste. 3
Zoning Classification: C-2
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 January 9, 2025.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I'm 40 yrs old with years of experience handling liquor. I follow the rules and
regulations of the city and county to handle the liquor properly. I have an accounting
team that will be doing the reports and payments automatically.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on the Finance Department
and Police Department recommendations for disapproval. The Police Department
disapproval is based on the applicant's criminal history and the applicant's failure to
disclose the criminal history on the application. The applicant has not demonstrated
the capability, qualifications, and reliability to hold and control a liquor license. Staff
also notes that the applicant must resolve any pending City of Phoenix building and
zoning requirements and be in compliance with the City of Phoenix Code and
Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment A - La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos - Police Department Recommendation
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Police Department Liquor License Disapproval Recommendation
Application Information
Business Name La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos District 8
LLC
Business Location 2822 North 32nd Street Suite 3
Applicant Name Rigoberto Duran Series Type 12(AOC)
The Police Department recommends denial of this liquor license application as the
LIQUOR LICENSE DISAPPROVAL FORM
applicant has not proven to be capable, qualified, and reliable to hold a Series 12 liquor
license. The owner and agent of La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos LLC, Rigoberto Duran has
made false statements on the application and, within the last five years has been convicted
of a crime.
The Police Department recommends disapproval of this liquor license application for
the following reasons:
A.R.S. 4-203.A states “A spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after satisfactory
showing of the capability, qualification and reliability of the applicant…”
A.R.S. 4-210.A.3 states “The licensee or controlling person knowingly files with the
department an application or other document that contains material information that is false
or misleading…”
THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE, QUALIFIED OR RELIABLE
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
Rigoberto Duran, the owner of La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos LLC and applicant for a
series 12 liquor license was arrested on January 16, 2024, by Phoenix Police officers for
misconduct involving weapons. The disposition date of that case (CR2024-102486-001)
was July 8, 2024, with a finding of guilty. Section four, question one of the personal
information questionnaire on the state liquor application asks “Have you been cited,
arrested, indicted, convicted or required to appear in court for violation of ANY criminal law
or ordinance, regardless of the disposition, even if dismissed or expunged, within the last 5
years?”. Mr. Duran answered “no”. Detective Augustine attempted to contact the applicant
to discuss this discrepancy on December 11, 2025 and as of the date of this writing, has
not received a return call. Detective Augustine has multiple questions regarding this
application regarding Mr. Duran’s criminal history, residence location and what his true and
lawful name is however, none of the discrepancies were able to be resolved due to the lack
of communication by the applicant.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS:
Additionally, the city questionnaire was due to the Phoenix City Clerks office by November
24, 2025. It was not received by the City Clerks office until December 4,2025. This
Police Department Liquor License Disapproval Recommendation
Application Information
Business Name La Cruda Mariscos Y Clamatos District 8
LLC
Business Location 2822 North 32nd Street Suite 3
Applicant Name Rigoberto Duran Series Type 12(AOC)
tardiness along with the lack of communication by the applicant does not allow the Police
LIQUOR LICENSE DISAPPROVAL FORM
Department to conduct a thorough review of the application/ applicant.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the applicant has failed to show that they are
reliable, capable or qualified and issuance of a liquor license for this applicant would not be
in the best interest of the community.
This recommendation for disapproval is submitted by: Det. T. AUGUSTINE #10117
SIGNATURES
Administrative Licensing Investigator
Liquor Enforcement Detail Supervisor
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ruby Receptionists, Inc
For $50,000 in payment authority for a month-to-month subscription for a 24-hour
answering service with Ruby Receptionist for the Parks and Recreation Department.
The service enables residents to report park concerns and code of conduct violations
24 hours per day, seven days a week. The pilot program with Ruby Receptionist
launched in March 2024, and the service has proven to be well received by the
community. The pay authority is required while the department proceeds with a
competitive procurement process.
Report
For $50,000 in payment authority for a month-to-month subscription for a 24-hour
answering service with Ruby Receptionist for the Parks and Recreation Department.
The service enables residents to report park concerns and code of conduct violations
24 hours per day, seven days a week. The pilot program with Ruby Receptionist
launched in March 2024, and the service has proven to be well received by the
community. The pay authority is required while the department proceeds with a
competitive procurement process.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ascension, a Division of AGM Container Controls, Inc.
For $56,000 in payment authority to do a one-time purchase of a vertical portable
wheelchair lift device for the Phoenix Convention Center Department. The wheelchair
lift will be used by individuals with disabilities to safely access performance riser
stages during meetings and events. This equipment is required to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and all applicable State accessibility laws.
Report
For $56,000 in payment authority to do a one-time purchase of a vertical portable
wheelchair lift device for the Phoenix Convention Center Department. The wheelchair
lift will be used by individuals with disabilities to safely access performance riser
stages during meetings and events. This equipment is required to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and all applicable State accessibility laws.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
National Association of City Transportation Officials, Inc.
For $35,000 in payment authority for a one-year membership to the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) for the Street Transportation
Department. NACTO provides North American cities and transit agencies an
invaluable forum to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and
cooperatively approach national transportation issues.
Report
For $35,000 in payment authority for a one-year membership to the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) for the Street Transportation
Department. NACTO provides North American cities and transit agencies an
invaluable forum to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and
cooperatively approach national transportation issues.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Arizona State University Southwest Pavement Technology Program
For $50,000 in payment authority for a one-year membership to the Arizona State
University Southwest Pavement Technology Program (SPTP) for the Street
Transportation Department. SPTP is an alliance between academic, agency, and
industry members, whereby the parties strategically advance fundamental research
activities and training in pavement science and engineering.
Report
For $50,000 in payment authority for a one-year membership to the Arizona State
University Southwest Pavement Technology Program (SPTP) for the Street
Transportation Department. SPTP is an alliance between academic, agency, and
industry members, whereby the parties strategically advance fundamental research
activities and training in pavement science and engineering.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Sauer v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $67,800, in settlement of claim(s) in Sauer v. City of
Phoenix, 23-0539-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City
Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving the Public Works
Department on December 22, 2023.
Report
To make payment of up to $67,800, in settlement of claim(s) in Sauer v. City of
Phoenix, 23-0539-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City
Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving the Public Works
Department on December 22, 2023.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Thompson v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $192,305 in settlement of claim(s) in Thompson v. City of
Phoenix, 24-0476-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City
Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving the Water Services
Department on April 4, 2024.
Report
To make payment of up to $192,305 in settlement of claim(s) in Thompson v. City of
Phoenix, 24-0476-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City
Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving the Water Services
Department on April 4, 2024.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Selection of Vice Mayor - Citywide
Request to permit the City Council to select one of its members to serve as Vice
Mayor, until such time of another Vice Mayor selection, pursuant to Phoenix City
Charter Chapter IV, Section 3. Rule 7(c) of the Rules of Council Proceedings (Phoenix
City Code Section 2-60) states that: "The Council shall select a new Vice Mayor once
each calendar year at the first formal meeting in January or at the next regularly
scheduled meeting after a Vice Mayor vacancy occurs."
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the City Manager's Office.
Report
Request to permit the City Council to select one of its members to serve as Vice
Mayor, until such time of another Vice Mayor selection, pursuant to Phoenix City
Charter Chapter IV, Section 3. Rule 7(c) of the Rules of Council Proceedings (Phoenix
City Code Section 2-60) states that: "The Council shall select a new Vice Mayor once
each calendar year at the first formal meeting in January or at the next regularly
scheduled meeting after a Vice Mayor vacancy occurs."
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the City Manager's Office.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Proposed Briles Pass Annexation - Public Hearing - District 1
A public hearing, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471, on the
proposed Briles Pass Annexation. This public hearing allows the City Council to gather
community input regarding this annexation proposal. The City Council will not act on
the proposed annexation at this public hearing. Formal adoption of this proposed
annexation will be considered at a later date.
Summary
The annexation was requested by Taylor C. Earl with Earl & Curley, P.C. for the
purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to
current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471
regarding annexations. Additionally, the annexation is recommended for adoption per
the attached Task Force Analysis Report (Attachment A).
Public Outreach
Notification of the public hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette
newspaper, and was posted in at least three conspicuous places in the area proposed
to be annexed. Also, notice via first-class mail was sent to each property owner within
the proposed annexation area.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes parcels 210-11-002A, 210-11-004A, 210-11-
004C, 210-11-004G, 210-11-012A, and 210-11-014B, located in the vicinity of 19th
Avenue and Jomax Road (Attachment B). The annexation area is approximately
14.334 acres (0.02239 square miles) and the population estimate is zero individuals.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Attachment A
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Alan Stephenson
Deputy City Manager
FROM: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Director
SUBJECT: Request for Task Force Analysis: Briles Pass Annexation, No. 554
This report recommends the approval of the proposed annexation of approximately 14.334
acres located approximately 460 feet east of the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Jomax
Road. (APNs: 210-11-012A, 210-11-002A, 210-11-004A, 210-11-004C, and 210-11-014B,
210-11-004G).
THE REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting to annex approximately 14.334 acres, located approximately 460
feet east of the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Jomax Road from Maricopa County.
The applicant is requesting the annexation with the intention of rezoning to R1-6 with the
intent to develop 80 single-family residences.
OTHER INFORMATION:
Planning Village: Deer Valley
General Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Current Zoning District: RU-43
Equivalent Zoning District: S-1
Current Land Use
Conditions On Site: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, plant nursery,
vacant land
To the North: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned R-2 PCD, single-family
residential
To the Northwest: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, church
To the South: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, single-family
residential, vacant land
To the West: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned PUD, single and multifamily
residential
To the East: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, single-family
residential, vacant land
Maricopa County History of Non-Conformities Present? NONE PRESENT
Maricopa County Zoning Case History: N/A
Attachment A
ALTERNATIVES:
• Option A - Annex the land as requested:
The City of Phoenix will control rezoning requests in this area to ensure conformance
with the General Plan Land Use Map. The City of Phoenix will capture property tax,
utility tax, state shared revenue, and impact fees.
• Option B - Deny the request for annexation:
If annexed later, this site would have been developed under County zoning and
development standards that may not be consistent with the General Plan, Land Use
Map, zoning, and development standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Located adjacent to City of Phoenix lands, this annexation is supported by the 2025 General
Plan, particularly the Land Use goal for land uses and development standards for
unincorporated land, under Policies 1 and 2. This annexation is recommended for approval.
Approval of annexation does not constitute recommendation for future rezoning actions.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
I. Water and Sewer Service
Q.S.#:48-25
Water Pressure Zone Area: 4A
Acres: approx. 16.6
Water:
12-inch DIP, pressure zone 4A water main within 19th Ave
54-inch PCCP, pressure zone 4A water main within 19th Ave (not for use)
8-inch DIP, pressure zone 5ED water main within Jomax Rd (not for use)
Sewer:
8-inch VCP within Jomax Rd
Dual 24-inch DIP force mains within 19th Ave (not for use)
Significant infrastructure improvements will be (or may be) required in order to serve
the proposed parcels within the City of Phoenix service area. Design and construction
of any infrastructure will be the responsibility of the developer. Specifics regarding
infrastructure improvement requirements would be discussed and determined at a pre-
application meeting after annexation. Additional information and requirements provided
under FACT 2403822 for KIVA 24-950.
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, or the building permit approval, and may be subject to future
Attachment A
restrictions as a result of water shortage. Water and/or sewer system requirements and
stipulations are determined at time of site plan approval. Capacity on any existing
infrastructure is determined at that time of preliminary site plan approval. Please be
advised that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety
of factors.
Per City Code 37-22, 37-39 and 37-142, annexation into the City requires all properties
connect to the City’s public water system. All existing on-site private wells must be
disconnected to prevent cross contamination with the City’s public water system.
Developments that use an average of 250,000-gallons of water or more per day are
required to provide a Water Conservation Plan. In addition, developments that use an
average of 500,000-gallons of water or more per day are required to demonstrate a
minimum of 30% water reuse in the Water Conservation Plan. The Water Conservation
Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Water Services Department (WSD) prior
to preliminary site plan approval.
II. Fire Protection
Servicing Station:
Phoenix Fire Station #55
26700 N 27th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85085
Current Response Time: 2 Min.11 Sec.
City Average Response Time: 7 Min. 24 Sec.
Difference From Typical Response Time: -5 Min. 13 Sec.
Number Of Service Calls Expected: 31
Average Cost Per Service Call: $830
Estimated Total Annual Fire Service Costs: $25,983
III. Police Protection
Servicing Station:
Black Mountain Precinct
33355 North Cave Creek Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85331
Number Of New Officers Required: 0.212
Number Of New Patrol Cars Required: 0.13
Estimated Total Annual Police Service Costs: $48,702
IV. Refuse Collection
Number of New Containers Required: 80
Cost for Refuse Containers, Each: $52.35
Cost for Recycling Containers, Each: $52.35
Total Start-Up Costs for Refuse Collection: $8,376
Attachment A
V. Street Maintenance
Average Cost Per Acre for Street
Maintenance: $172
Estimated Total Annual Street
Maintenance Costs: $2,461
VI. Public Transit
Servicing Routes: 19 (North and South), 35 (East and West)
VII. Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Park Demand in Acres: 0.82
Community Park Demand in Acres: 0.44
District Park Demand in Acres: 0.44
Total Park Demand in Acres: 1.69
Cost Per Acre, Annual Maintenance: $20,127
Total Annual Parks and Recreation Costs: $34,067
VIII. Schools
Elementary School District: Deer Valley Unified
High School District: Deer Valley Unified
Total Expected Elementary School Students: 56
Total Expected High School Students: 32
Total Expected New Students: 88
IX. Revenues
Expected Total Impact Fees at Buildout: $603,056
Beginning Next Fiscal Year
Property Tax Income*: $7,346
Beginning Next
Utility Fee Income: $10,000
State Shared Revenue: $90,262
Fiscal Year
Solid Waste: $37,284
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $144,892
Beginning 2024-2025 Fiscal Year
Property Tax Income*: $7,346
Beginning Utility Fee Income: $10,000
2025-2026
State Shared Revenue: $90,262
Solid Waste: $37,284
Attachment A
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $144,892
X. Total Costs
Revenue, First Year Only: $747,948
Revenue, Year Two and Beyond: $144,892
Expenses, First Year Only: $119,590
Expenses, Year Two and Beyond: $111,214
XI. Total Annual Revenue
Total Annual Revenue, First Year**: $628,358
Total Annual Revenue, 2025
and Beyond**: $33,678
*The above referenced Property Tax Income figures are based on vacant parcels
only; it does not refer to future development which will vary depending on number of
lots and individual square footage
**Total Tax Related Income and Total Annual Revenues will vary depending on
project scope and size, the timing of permit issuance and build-out.
Attachment B
JOMAX ROAD
17TH AVENUE
19TH AVENUE
Δ=1°59'56"
BRILES ROAD
SCALE 1" = 250'
EXHIBIT BRILES PASS
4550 North 12th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
Phone 602-264-6831
http://www.cvlci.com
ANNEXATION PARCEL
1 OF 1
N:\01\0417901\CADD\Exhibits\VX.ANNEX.BRILES.dwg Dominique August 8, 2025
Report
A public hearing, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471, on the
proposed Briles Pass Annexation. This public hearing allows the City Council to gather
community input regarding this annexation proposal. The City Council will not act on
the proposed annexation at this public hearing. Formal adoption of this proposed
annexation will be considered at a later date.
Summary
The annexation was requested by Taylor C. Earl with Earl & Curley, P.C. for the
purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to
current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471
regarding annexations. Additionally, the annexation is recommended for adoption per
the attached Task Force Analysis Report (Attachment A).
Public Outreach
Notification of the public hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette
newspaper, and was posted in at least three conspicuous places in the area proposed
to be annexed. Also, notice via first-class mail was sent to each property owner within
the proposed annexation area.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes parcels 210-11-002A, 210-11-004A, 210-11-
004C, 210-11-004G, 210-11-012A, and 210-11-014B, located in the vicinity of 19th
Avenue and Jomax Road (Attachment B). The annexation area is approximately
14.334 acres (0.02239 square miles) and the population estimate is zero individuals.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
Attachment A
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Alan Stephenson
Deputy City Manager
FROM: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Director
SUBJECT: Request for Task Force Analysis: Briles Pass Annexation, No. 554
This report recommends the approval of the proposed annexation of approximately 14.334
acres located approximately 460 feet east of the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Jomax
Road. (APNs: 210-11-012A, 210-11-002A, 210-11-004A, 210-11-004C, and 210-11-014B,
210-11-004G).
THE REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting to annex approximately 14.334 acres, located approximately 460
feet east of the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Jomax Road from Maricopa County.
The applicant is requesting the annexation with the intention of rezoning to R1-6 with the
intent to develop 80 single-family residences.
OTHER INFORMATION:
Planning Village: Deer Valley
General Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Current Zoning District: RU-43
Equivalent Zoning District: S-1
Current Land Use
Conditions On Site: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, plant nursery,
vacant land
To the North: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned R-2 PCD, single-family
residential
To the Northwest: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, church
To the South: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, single-family
residential, vacant land
To the West: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned PUD, single and multifamily
residential
To the East: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, single-family
residential, vacant land
Maricopa County History of Non-Conformities Present? NONE PRESENT
Maricopa County Zoning Case History: N/A
Attachment A
ALTERNATIVES:
• Option A - Annex the land as requested:
The City of Phoenix will control rezoning requests in this area to ensure conformance
with the General Plan Land Use Map. The City of Phoenix will capture property tax,
utility tax, state shared revenue, and impact fees.
• Option B - Deny the request for annexation:
If annexed later, this site would have been developed under County zoning and
development standards that may not be consistent with the General Plan, Land Use
Map, zoning, and development standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Located adjacent to City of Phoenix lands, this annexation is supported by the 2025 General
Plan, particularly the Land Use goal for land uses and development standards for
unincorporated land, under Policies 1 and 2. This annexation is recommended for approval.
Approval of annexation does not constitute recommendation for future rezoning actions.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
I. Water and Sewer Service
Q.S.#:48-25
Water Pressure Zone Area: 4A
Acres: approx. 16.6
Water:
12-inch DIP, pressure zone 4A water main within 19th Ave
54-inch PCCP, pressure zone 4A water main within 19th Ave (not for use)
8-inch DIP, pressure zone 5ED water main within Jomax Rd (not for use)
Sewer:
8-inch VCP within Jomax Rd
Dual 24-inch DIP force mains within 19th Ave (not for use)
Significant infrastructure improvements will be (or may be) required in order to serve
the proposed parcels within the City of Phoenix service area. Design and construction
of any infrastructure will be the responsibility of the developer. Specifics regarding
infrastructure improvement requirements would be discussed and determined at a pre-
application meeting after annexation. Additional information and requirements provided
under FACT 2403822 for KIVA 24-950.
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, or the building permit approval, and may be subject to future
Attachment A
restrictions as a result of water shortage. Water and/or sewer system requirements and
stipulations are determined at time of site plan approval. Capacity on any existing
infrastructure is determined at that time of preliminary site plan approval. Please be
advised that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety
of factors.
Per City Code 37-22, 37-39 and 37-142, annexation into the City requires all properties
connect to the City’s public water system. All existing on-site private wells must be
disconnected to prevent cross contamination with the City’s public water system.
Developments that use an average of 250,000-gallons of water or more per day are
required to provide a Water Conservation Plan. In addition, developments that use an
average of 500,000-gallons of water or more per day are required to demonstrate a
minimum of 30% water reuse in the Water Conservation Plan. The Water Conservation
Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Water Services Department (WSD) prior
to preliminary site plan approval.
II. Fire Protection
Servicing Station:
Phoenix Fire Station #55
26700 N 27th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85085
Current Response Time: 2 Min.11 Sec.
City Average Response Time: 7 Min. 24 Sec.
Difference From Typical Response Time: -5 Min. 13 Sec.
Number Of Service Calls Expected: 31
Average Cost Per Service Call: $830
Estimated Total Annual Fire Service Costs: $25,983
III. Police Protection
Servicing Station:
Black Mountain Precinct
33355 North Cave Creek Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85331
Number Of New Officers Required: 0.212
Number Of New Patrol Cars Required: 0.13
Estimated Total Annual Police Service Costs: $48,702
IV. Refuse Collection
Number of New Containers Required: 80
Cost for Refuse Containers, Each: $52.35
Cost for Recycling Containers, Each: $52.35
Total Start-Up Costs for Refuse Collection: $8,376
Attachment A
V. Street Maintenance
Average Cost Per Acre for Street
Maintenance: $172
Estimated Total Annual Street
Maintenance Costs: $2,461
VI. Public Transit
Servicing Routes: 19 (North and South), 35 (East and West)
VII. Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Park Demand in Acres: 0.82
Community Park Demand in Acres: 0.44
District Park Demand in Acres: 0.44
Total Park Demand in Acres: 1.69
Cost Per Acre, Annual Maintenance: $20,127
Total Annual Parks and Recreation Costs: $34,067
VIII. Schools
Elementary School District: Deer Valley Unified
High School District: Deer Valley Unified
Total Expected Elementary School Students: 56
Total Expected High School Students: 32
Total Expected New Students: 88
IX. Revenues
Expected Total Impact Fees at Buildout: $603,056
Beginning Next Fiscal Year
Property Tax Income*: $7,346
Beginning Next
Utility Fee Income: $10,000
State Shared Revenue: $90,262
Fiscal Year
Solid Waste: $37,284
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $144,892
Beginning 2024-2025 Fiscal Year
Property Tax Income*: $7,346
Beginning Utility Fee Income: $10,000
2025-2026
State Shared Revenue: $90,262
Solid Waste: $37,284
Attachment A
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $144,892
X. Total Costs
Revenue, First Year Only: $747,948
Revenue, Year Two and Beyond: $144,892
Expenses, First Year Only: $119,590
Expenses, Year Two and Beyond: $111,214
XI. Total Annual Revenue
Total Annual Revenue, First Year**: $628,358
Total Annual Revenue, 2025
and Beyond**: $33,678
*The above referenced Property Tax Income figures are based on vacant parcels
only; it does not refer to future development which will vary depending on number of
lots and individual square footage
**Total Tax Related Income and Total Annual Revenues will vary depending on
project scope and size, the timing of permit issuance and build-out.
Attachment B
JOMAX ROAD
17TH AVENUE
19TH AVENUE
Δ=1°59'56"
BRILES ROAD
SCALE 1" = 250'
EXHIBIT BRILES PASS
4550 North 12th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
Phone 602-264-6831
http://www.cvlci.com
ANNEXATION PARCEL
1 OF 1
N:\01\0417901\CADD\Exhibits\VX.ANNEX.BRILES.dwg Dominique August 8, 2025
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Proposed Sun Up Ranch Annexation - Public Hearing - District 1
A public hearing, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471, on the
proposed Sun Up Ranch Annexation. This public hearing allows the City Council to
gather community input regarding this annexation proposal. The City Council will not
act on the proposed annexation at this public hearing. Formal adoption of this
proposed annexation will be considered at a later date.
Summary
The annexation was requested by Chris Webb with the Rose Law Group, P.C. for the
purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to
current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471
regarding annexations. Additionally, the annexation is recommended for adoption per
the attached Task Force Analysis Report (Attachment A).
Public Outreach
Notification of the public hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette
newspaper, and was posted in at least three conspicuous places in the area proposed
to be annexed. Also, notice via first-class mail was sent to each property owner within
the proposed annexation area.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes parcels 202-22-001E and 202-22-005A,
located in the vicinity of 43rd Avenue and New River Road (Attachment B). The
annexation area is approximately 190.2551 acres (0.29727 square miles) and the
population estimate is zero individuals.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
ATTACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Alan Stephenson
Deputy City Manager
FROM: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Director
SUBJECT: Request for Task Force Analysis: Sun Up Ranch Annexation, No. 553
This report recommends the approval of the proposed annexation of approximately 190.2551
acres located approximately at the southwest corner of the I-17 Freeway and the Jenny Lin
Road alignment (APNs 202-22-005A and 202-22-001E).
THE REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting to annex approximately 190.2551 acres, approximately located at
the southwest corner of the I-17 Freeway and the Jenny Lin Road alignment. The applicant is
requesting the annexation with the intent to rezone to R1-6 to develop 600 single-family
residences.
OTHER INFORMATION:
Planning Village: Rio Vista
General Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre, and Parks/Open Space –
Future Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre.
Current Zoning District: RU-43
Equivalent Zoning District: S-1
Current Land Use
Conditions On Site: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, vacant land
To the North: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence), vacant land
Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, vacant land
and single family residential
To the South: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District), S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), single-
family residential, vacant land
To the West: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence), vacant land
To the East: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, single family
residential, freeway
Maricopa County History of Non-Conformities Present? None.
ATTACHMENT A
Maricopa County Zoning Case History: None.
ALTERNATIVES:
• Option A - Annex the land as requested:
The City of Phoenix will control rezoning requests in this area to ensure conformance
with the General Plan Land Use Map. The city of Phoenix will capture property tax,
utility tax, state shared revenue, and impact fees when applicable.
• Option B - Deny the request for annexation:
If annexed later, this site would have been developed under County zoning and
development standards that may not be consistent with the General Plan, Land Use
Map, zoning, and development standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Located adjacent to City of Phoenix lands, this annexation is supported by the 2025 General
Plan, particularly the Land Use goal for land uses and development standards for
unincorporated land, under Policies 1 and 2. This annexation is recommended for approval.
Approval of annexation does not constitute recommendation for future rezoning actions.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
I. Water and Sewer Service
Q.S.#: 72-18 & 72-19
Water Pressure Zone Area: 9D
Acres: 190.2551
Water
12-inch DIP water main within Sonoran Arroyo Ln
8-inch DIP water main within 44th Ave
Sewer
8-inch sewer main within 43rd Ave
Significant infrastructure improvements will be (or may be) required in order to serve
the proposed parcels within the City of Phoenix service area. Design and construction
of any infrastructure will be the responsibility of the developer. Specifics regarding
infrastructure improvement requirements would be discussed and determined at a
pre-application meeting after annexation. Additional information and requirements
provided under PAPP 2403641 for KIVA 24-898.
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
ATTACHMENT A
application review, or the building permit approval, and may be subject to future
restrictions as a result of water shortage. Water and/or sewer system requirements
and stipulations are determined at time of site plan approval. Capacity on any existing
infrastructure is determined at that time of preliminary site plan approval. Please be
advised that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety
of factors.
Per City Code 37-22, 37-39 and 37-142, annexation into the City requires all properties
connect to the City’s public water system. All existing on-site private wells must be
disconnected to prevent cross contamination with the City’s public water system.
Developments that use an average of 250,000-gallons of water or more per day are
required to provide a Water Conservation Plan. In addition, developments that use an
average of 500,000-gallons of water or more per day are required to demonstrate a
minimum of 30% water reuse in the Water Conservation Plan. The Water Conservation
Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Water Services Department (WSD) prior
to preliminary site plan approval.
II. Fire Protection
Servicing Station:
Daisy Mountain Fire Station 142
41104 N Daisy Mountain Dr
Anthem, AZ 85086
Current Response Time: 6 Min. 1 Sec.
City Average Response Time: 7 Min. 24 Sec.
Difference from Typical Response Time: -1 Min. 23 Sec.
Number of Service Calls Expected: 235
Average Cost per Service Call: $830
Estimated Total Annual Fire Service Costs: $194,876
III. Police Protection
Servicing Station:
Black Mountain Precinct
33355 North Cave Creek Road
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
Number Of New Officers Required: 1.64
Number Of New Patrol Cars Required: 0.96
Estimated Total Annual Police Service Costs: $365,265
IV. Refuse Collection
Number of New Containers Required: 600
Cost for Refuse Containers, Each: $52.35
Cost for Recycling Containers, Each: $52.35
Total Start-Up Costs for Refuse Collection: $62,820
ATTACHMENT A
V. Street Maintenance
Average Cost per Acre for Street
Maintenance: $172
Estimated Total Annual Street
Maintenance Costs: $32,669
VI. Public Transit
Servicing Routes: N/A
VII. Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Park Demand in Acres: 6.14
Community Park Demand in Acres: 3.28
District Park Demand in Acres: 3.28
Total Park Demand in Acres: 12.69
Cost Per Acre, Annual Maintenance: $20,127
Total Annual Parks and Recreation Costs: $255,502
VIII. Schools
Elementary School District: Deer Valley Unified
High School District: Deer Valley Unified
Total Expected Elementary School Students: 420
Total Expected High School Students: 240
Total Expected New Students: 660
IX. Revenues
Expected Total Impact Fees at Buildout: $21,157,692
Beginning Next Fiscal Year
Property Tax Income*: $8,798
Beginning Next
Utility Fee Income: $75,000
State Share Revenue: $676,962
Solid Waste: $279,632
Fiscal Year
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $1,031,594
Beginning 2025-2026 Fiscal Year
Begin
ning Property Tax Income*: $8,798
2025-
2026 Utility Fee Income: $75,000
ATTACHMENT A
State Shared Revenue: $676,962
Solid Waste: $279,632
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $1,031,594
X. Total Costs
Revenue, First Year Only: $22,189,286
Revenue, Year Two and Beyond: $1,031,594
Expenses, First Year Only: $911,133
Expenses, Year Two and Beyond: $848,313
XI. Total Annual Revenue
Total Annual Revenue, First Year**: $21,278,153
Total Annual Revenue, 2025
and Beyond**: $183,281
*The above referenced Property Tax Income figures are based on vacant parcels
only; it does not refer to future development which will vary depending on number
of lots and individual square footage
**Total Tax Related Income and Total Annual Revenues will vary depending on
project scope and size, the timing of permit issuance and build-out.
ATTACHMENT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SUN-UP RANCH
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
JOB NO. 24-0097 AUGUST 13, 2025
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A 3-INCH GLO BRASS CAP FLUSH AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4,
FROM WHICH A 3-INCH GLO BRASS CAP FLUSH AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4, BEARS
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 2637.29 FEET (BASIS OF BEARING);
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 40
SECONDS EAST, 1318.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 OF SAID SECTION 4;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SOUTH 0 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, 80.00 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 80.00 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, SOUTH 89
DEGREES 50 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 1318.53 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 80.00 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 89
DEGREES 51 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 1380.16 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LIMITS OF EXCESS
RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RIGHT OF WAY PLANS,
PROJECT NO. I-17-1(29)22, DRAWING NO. D-7T-666, DATED SEPTEMBER 1963;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LIMITS OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 16 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 46
SECONDS WEST, 113.97 FEET;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LIMITS OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 5 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 55
SECONDS EAST, 350.45 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS
SHOWN ON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESULTS OF SURVEY, PROJECT NO. 017-MA-
224- H7206-01R, DATED NOVEMBER 2007;
THENCE ALONG WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 5 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 51
SECONDS EAST, 660.10 FEET;
THENCE WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 4 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 48 SECONDS
WEST, 41.65 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 73 DEGREES 38
MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, 616.77 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 18 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST, 593.86 FEET;
EPS Group, Inc. • 1130 N Alma School Road, Suite 120 • Mesa, AZ 85201
Tel (480) 503-2250 • Fax (480) 503-2258
S:\Projects\2024\24-0097\Land Survey\Legals\24-0097 LD02 - Sun Up Ranch - LD.docx
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
THENCE SOUTH 56 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 58 SECONDS EAST, 385.84 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 80 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, 448.41 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
RESULTS OF SURVEY, PROJECT NO. 017-MA- 224- H7206-01R, DATED NOVEMBER 2007;
THENCE WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 4 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 48 SECONDS
WEST, 882.95 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 09
SECONDS WEST, 1363.68 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, NORTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 20
SECONDS WEST, 2629.54 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, NORTH 0 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 47 SECONDS
EAST, 1320.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 OF SECTION 4;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST, 1316.70
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAD LOT 2;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, NORTH 0 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, 1249.76
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID OVERALL PORTION OF LAND CONTAINS 8,287,511 SQUARE FEET OR 190.2551 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS OF RECORD OR
OTHERWISE.
THIS DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE USED TO VIOLATE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE
STATE, COUNTY AND/OR MUNICIPALITY, OR ANY OTHER LAND DIVISION RESTRICTIONS.
EPS Group, Inc. • 1130 N Alma School Road, Suite 120 • Mesa, AZ 85201
Tel (480) 503-2250 • Fax (480) 503-2258
S:\Projects\2024\24-0097\Land Survey\Legals\24-0097 LD02 - Sun Up Ranch - LD.docx
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
INTERSTATE
I-17 HIGHWAY
Drawn by:A.G. Reviewed by:R.J. Sheet Scale:1" = 500' Sheet No: 1 of 2
Sun-Up Ranch 1130 N. Alma School Rd.
Annexation Boundary Ste. 120 Mesa, AZ 85201
T:480.503.2250 | F:480.503.2258
24-0097
www.epsgroupinc.com
Exhibit "A"
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
LINE TABLE LINE TABLE LINE TABLE
Drawn by:A.G. Reviewed by:R.J. Sheet Scale:N.T.S. Sheet No: 2 of 2
Sun-Up Ranch 1130 N. Alma School Rd.
Annexation Boundary Ste. 120 Mesa, AZ 85201
T:480.503.2250 | F:480.503.2258
24-0097
www.epsgroupinc.com
Exhibit "A"
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
Sun-Up Ranch
Annexation Boundary Segment #9 : Line
Job Number 24-0097 Course: S56°12'58"E Length: 385.84'
Date: August 13, 2025 North: 1053305.9987' East: 629495.3618'
Tie Segment #10 : Line
Course: N80°47'50"E Length: 448.41'
North: 1055158.8163' East: 625880.2979' North: 1053377.7125' East: 629938.0001'
Segment #1 : Line Segment #11 : Line
Course: S89°50'40"E Length: 1318.65' Course: S04°16'48"W Length: 882.95'
North: 1055155.2362' East: 627198.9430' North: 1052497.2249' East: 629872.1050'
Segment #12 : Line
Segment #2 : Line Course: S89°59'09"W Length: 1363.68'
Course: S00°06'49"W Length: 80.00' North: 1052496.8877' East: 628508.4251'
North: 1055075.2364' East: 627198.7844'
Segment #13 : Line
Easement Course: N89°39'20"W Length: 2629.54'
North: 1052512.6956' East: 625878.9326'
North: 1055075.2333' East: 627198.7810'
Segment #14 : Line
Segment #1 : Line Course: N00°01'47"E Length: 1320.59'
Course: S89°50'40"E Length: 1318.53' North: 1053833.2854' East: 625879.6176'
North: 1055071.6535' East: 628517.3061'
Segment #15 : Line
Segment #2 : Line Course: S89°39'36"E Length: 1316.70'
Course: S89°51'44"E Length: 1380.16' North: 1053825.4720' East: 627196.2945'
North: 1055068.3347' East: 629897.4621'
Segment #16 : Line
Segment #3 : Line Course: N00°06'49"E Length: 1249.76'
Course: S16°07'46"W Length: 113.97' North: 1055075.2295' East: 627198.7726'
North: 1054958.8509' East: 629865.8003'
Perimeter: 14672.94' Area: 8287511 Sq. Ft.
Segment #4 : Line Error Closure: 0.0092 Course: S65°54'51"W
Course: S05°14'55"E Length: 350.45' Error North: -0.00374 East: -0.00837
North: 1054609.8703' East: 629897.8586'
Precision 1: 1594886.96
Segment #5 : Line
Course: S05°02'51"E Length: 660.10'
North: 1053952.3301' East: 629955.9352'
Segment #6 : Line
Course: S04°16'48"W Length: 41.65'
North: 1053910.7963' East: 629952.8268'
Segment #7 : Line
Course: N73°38'59"W Length: 616.77'
North: 1054084.4225' East: 629360.9999'
Segment #8 : Line
Course: S18°17'08"W Length: 593.86'
North: 1053520.5497' East: 629174.6745'
Report
A public hearing, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471, on the
proposed Sun Up Ranch Annexation. This public hearing allows the City Council to
gather community input regarding this annexation proposal. The City Council will not
act on the proposed annexation at this public hearing. Formal adoption of this
proposed annexation will be considered at a later date.
Summary
The annexation was requested by Chris Webb with the Rose Law Group, P.C. for the
purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to
current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471
regarding annexations. Additionally, the annexation is recommended for adoption per
the attached Task Force Analysis Report (Attachment A).
Public Outreach
Notification of the public hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette
newspaper, and was posted in at least three conspicuous places in the area proposed
to be annexed. Also, notice via first-class mail was sent to each property owner within
the proposed annexation area.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes parcels 202-22-001E and 202-22-005A,
located in the vicinity of 43rd Avenue and New River Road (Attachment B). The
annexation area is approximately 190.2551 acres (0.29727 square miles) and the
population estimate is zero individuals.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the City Clerk
Department.
ATTACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Alan Stephenson
Deputy City Manager
FROM: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Director
SUBJECT: Request for Task Force Analysis: Sun Up Ranch Annexation, No. 553
This report recommends the approval of the proposed annexation of approximately 190.2551
acres located approximately at the southwest corner of the I-17 Freeway and the Jenny Lin
Road alignment (APNs 202-22-005A and 202-22-001E).
THE REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting to annex approximately 190.2551 acres, approximately located at
the southwest corner of the I-17 Freeway and the Jenny Lin Road alignment. The applicant is
requesting the annexation with the intent to rezone to R1-6 to develop 600 single-family
residences.
OTHER INFORMATION:
Planning Village: Rio Vista
General Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre, and Parks/Open Space –
Future Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre.
Current Zoning District: RU-43
Equivalent Zoning District: S-1
Current Land Use
Conditions On Site: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, vacant land
To the North: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence), vacant land
Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, vacant land
and single family residential
To the South: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District), S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence), single-
family residential, vacant land
To the West: City of Phoenix jurisdiction, zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence), vacant land
To the East: Maricopa County jurisdiction, zoned RU-43, single family
residential, freeway
Maricopa County History of Non-Conformities Present? None.
ATTACHMENT A
Maricopa County Zoning Case History: None.
ALTERNATIVES:
• Option A - Annex the land as requested:
The City of Phoenix will control rezoning requests in this area to ensure conformance
with the General Plan Land Use Map. The city of Phoenix will capture property tax,
utility tax, state shared revenue, and impact fees when applicable.
• Option B - Deny the request for annexation:
If annexed later, this site would have been developed under County zoning and
development standards that may not be consistent with the General Plan, Land Use
Map, zoning, and development standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Located adjacent to City of Phoenix lands, this annexation is supported by the 2025 General
Plan, particularly the Land Use goal for land uses and development standards for
unincorporated land, under Policies 1 and 2. This annexation is recommended for approval.
Approval of annexation does not constitute recommendation for future rezoning actions.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
I. Water and Sewer Service
Q.S.#: 72-18 & 72-19
Water Pressure Zone Area: 9D
Acres: 190.2551
Water
12-inch DIP water main within Sonoran Arroyo Ln
8-inch DIP water main within 44th Ave
Sewer
8-inch sewer main within 43rd Ave
Significant infrastructure improvements will be (or may be) required in order to serve
the proposed parcels within the City of Phoenix service area. Design and construction
of any infrastructure will be the responsibility of the developer. Specifics regarding
infrastructure improvement requirements would be discussed and determined at a
pre-application meeting after annexation. Additional information and requirements
provided under PAPP 2403641 for KIVA 24-898.
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
ATTACHMENT A
application review, or the building permit approval, and may be subject to future
restrictions as a result of water shortage. Water and/or sewer system requirements
and stipulations are determined at time of site plan approval. Capacity on any existing
infrastructure is determined at that time of preliminary site plan approval. Please be
advised that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety
of factors.
Per City Code 37-22, 37-39 and 37-142, annexation into the City requires all properties
connect to the City’s public water system. All existing on-site private wells must be
disconnected to prevent cross contamination with the City’s public water system.
Developments that use an average of 250,000-gallons of water or more per day are
required to provide a Water Conservation Plan. In addition, developments that use an
average of 500,000-gallons of water or more per day are required to demonstrate a
minimum of 30% water reuse in the Water Conservation Plan. The Water Conservation
Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Water Services Department (WSD) prior
to preliminary site plan approval.
II. Fire Protection
Servicing Station:
Daisy Mountain Fire Station 142
41104 N Daisy Mountain Dr
Anthem, AZ 85086
Current Response Time: 6 Min. 1 Sec.
City Average Response Time: 7 Min. 24 Sec.
Difference from Typical Response Time: -1 Min. 23 Sec.
Number of Service Calls Expected: 235
Average Cost per Service Call: $830
Estimated Total Annual Fire Service Costs: $194,876
III. Police Protection
Servicing Station:
Black Mountain Precinct
33355 North Cave Creek Road
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
Number Of New Officers Required: 1.64
Number Of New Patrol Cars Required: 0.96
Estimated Total Annual Police Service Costs: $365,265
IV. Refuse Collection
Number of New Containers Required: 600
Cost for Refuse Containers, Each: $52.35
Cost for Recycling Containers, Each: $52.35
Total Start-Up Costs for Refuse Collection: $62,820
ATTACHMENT A
V. Street Maintenance
Average Cost per Acre for Street
Maintenance: $172
Estimated Total Annual Street
Maintenance Costs: $32,669
VI. Public Transit
Servicing Routes: N/A
VII. Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Park Demand in Acres: 6.14
Community Park Demand in Acres: 3.28
District Park Demand in Acres: 3.28
Total Park Demand in Acres: 12.69
Cost Per Acre, Annual Maintenance: $20,127
Total Annual Parks and Recreation Costs: $255,502
VIII. Schools
Elementary School District: Deer Valley Unified
High School District: Deer Valley Unified
Total Expected Elementary School Students: 420
Total Expected High School Students: 240
Total Expected New Students: 660
IX. Revenues
Expected Total Impact Fees at Buildout: $21,157,692
Beginning Next Fiscal Year
Property Tax Income*: $8,798
Beginning Next
Utility Fee Income: $75,000
State Share Revenue: $676,962
Solid Waste: $279,632
Fiscal Year
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $1,031,594
Beginning 2025-2026 Fiscal Year
Begin
ning Property Tax Income*: $8,798
2025-
2026 Utility Fee Income: $75,000
ATTACHMENT A
State Shared Revenue: $676,962
Solid Waste: $279,632
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually**: $1,031,594
X. Total Costs
Revenue, First Year Only: $22,189,286
Revenue, Year Two and Beyond: $1,031,594
Expenses, First Year Only: $911,133
Expenses, Year Two and Beyond: $848,313
XI. Total Annual Revenue
Total Annual Revenue, First Year**: $21,278,153
Total Annual Revenue, 2025
and Beyond**: $183,281
*The above referenced Property Tax Income figures are based on vacant parcels
only; it does not refer to future development which will vary depending on number
of lots and individual square footage
**Total Tax Related Income and Total Annual Revenues will vary depending on
project scope and size, the timing of permit issuance and build-out.
ATTACHMENT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SUN-UP RANCH
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
JOB NO. 24-0097 AUGUST 13, 2025
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A 3-INCH GLO BRASS CAP FLUSH AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4,
FROM WHICH A 3-INCH GLO BRASS CAP FLUSH AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4, BEARS
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 2637.29 FEET (BASIS OF BEARING);
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 40
SECONDS EAST, 1318.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 OF SAID SECTION 4;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SOUTH 0 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, 80.00 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 80.00 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, SOUTH 89
DEGREES 50 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 1318.53 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 80.00 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 89
DEGREES 51 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 1380.16 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LIMITS OF EXCESS
RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RIGHT OF WAY PLANS,
PROJECT NO. I-17-1(29)22, DRAWING NO. D-7T-666, DATED SEPTEMBER 1963;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LIMITS OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 16 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 46
SECONDS WEST, 113.97 FEET;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LIMITS OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 5 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 55
SECONDS EAST, 350.45 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS
SHOWN ON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESULTS OF SURVEY, PROJECT NO. 017-MA-
224- H7206-01R, DATED NOVEMBER 2007;
THENCE ALONG WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 5 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 51
SECONDS EAST, 660.10 FEET;
THENCE WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 4 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 48 SECONDS
WEST, 41.65 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 73 DEGREES 38
MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, 616.77 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 18 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST, 593.86 FEET;
EPS Group, Inc. • 1130 N Alma School Road, Suite 120 • Mesa, AZ 85201
Tel (480) 503-2250 • Fax (480) 503-2258
S:\Projects\2024\24-0097\Land Survey\Legals\24-0097 LD02 - Sun Up Ranch - LD.docx
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
THENCE SOUTH 56 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 58 SECONDS EAST, 385.84 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 80 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, 448.41 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
RESULTS OF SURVEY, PROJECT NO. 017-MA- 224- H7206-01R, DATED NOVEMBER 2007;
THENCE WESTERLY LIMITS OF INTERSTATE 17 RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 4 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 48 SECONDS
WEST, 882.95 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 09
SECONDS WEST, 1363.68 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, NORTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 20
SECONDS WEST, 2629.54 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, NORTH 0 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 47 SECONDS
EAST, 1320.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 OF SECTION 4;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST, 1316.70
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAD LOT 2;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, NORTH 0 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, 1249.76
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID OVERALL PORTION OF LAND CONTAINS 8,287,511 SQUARE FEET OR 190.2551 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS OF RECORD OR
OTHERWISE.
THIS DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE USED TO VIOLATE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE
STATE, COUNTY AND/OR MUNICIPALITY, OR ANY OTHER LAND DIVISION RESTRICTIONS.
EPS Group, Inc. • 1130 N Alma School Road, Suite 120 • Mesa, AZ 85201
Tel (480) 503-2250 • Fax (480) 503-2258
S:\Projects\2024\24-0097\Land Survey\Legals\24-0097 LD02 - Sun Up Ranch - LD.docx
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
INTERSTATE
I-17 HIGHWAY
Drawn by:A.G. Reviewed by:R.J. Sheet Scale:1" = 500' Sheet No: 1 of 2
Sun-Up Ranch 1130 N. Alma School Rd.
Annexation Boundary Ste. 120 Mesa, AZ 85201
T:480.503.2250 | F:480.503.2258
24-0097
www.epsgroupinc.com
Exhibit "A"
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
LINE TABLE LINE TABLE LINE TABLE
Drawn by:A.G. Reviewed by:R.J. Sheet Scale:N.T.S. Sheet No: 2 of 2
Sun-Up Ranch 1130 N. Alma School Rd.
Annexation Boundary Ste. 120 Mesa, AZ 85201
T:480.503.2250 | F:480.503.2258
24-0097
www.epsgroupinc.com
Exhibit "A"
Doc ID: ecf09221f57eec978d173c0c1ed80bb3da335581
Sun-Up Ranch
Annexation Boundary Segment #9 : Line
Job Number 24-0097 Course: S56°12'58"E Length: 385.84'
Date: August 13, 2025 North: 1053305.9987' East: 629495.3618'
Tie Segment #10 : Line
Course: N80°47'50"E Length: 448.41'
North: 1055158.8163' East: 625880.2979' North: 1053377.7125' East: 629938.0001'
Segment #1 : Line Segment #11 : Line
Course: S89°50'40"E Length: 1318.65' Course: S04°16'48"W Length: 882.95'
North: 1055155.2362' East: 627198.9430' North: 1052497.2249' East: 629872.1050'
Segment #12 : Line
Segment #2 : Line Course: S89°59'09"W Length: 1363.68'
Course: S00°06'49"W Length: 80.00' North: 1052496.8877' East: 628508.4251'
North: 1055075.2364' East: 627198.7844'
Segment #13 : Line
Easement Course: N89°39'20"W Length: 2629.54'
North: 1052512.6956' East: 625878.9326'
North: 1055075.2333' East: 627198.7810'
Segment #14 : Line
Segment #1 : Line Course: N00°01'47"E Length: 1320.59'
Course: S89°50'40"E Length: 1318.53' North: 1053833.2854' East: 625879.6176'
North: 1055071.6535' East: 628517.3061'
Segment #15 : Line
Segment #2 : Line Course: S89°39'36"E Length: 1316.70'
Course: S89°51'44"E Length: 1380.16' North: 1053825.4720' East: 627196.2945'
North: 1055068.3347' East: 629897.4621'
Segment #16 : Line
Segment #3 : Line Course: N00°06'49"E Length: 1249.76'
Course: S16°07'46"W Length: 113.97' North: 1055075.2295' East: 627198.7726'
North: 1054958.8509' East: 629865.8003'
Perimeter: 14672.94' Area: 8287511 Sq. Ft.
Segment #4 : Line Error Closure: 0.0092 Course: S65°54'51"W
Course: S05°14'55"E Length: 350.45' Error North: -0.00374 East: -0.00837
North: 1054609.8703' East: 629897.8586'
Precision 1: 1594886.96
Segment #5 : Line
Course: S05°02'51"E Length: 660.10'
North: 1053952.3301' East: 629955.9352'
Segment #6 : Line
Course: S04°16'48"W Length: 41.65'
North: 1053910.7963' East: 629952.8268'
Segment #7 : Line
Course: N73°38'59"W Length: 616.77'
North: 1054084.4225' East: 629360.9999'
Segment #8 : Line
Course: S18°17'08"W Length: 593.86'
North: 1053520.5497' East: 629174.6745'
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to License City-Owned Vacant Land near 36th Avenue and West
Encanto Boulevard to the Del Monte Village Garden Association (Ordinance S-
52516) - District 4
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
license with Del Monte Village Garden Association for vacant City-owned property near
36th Avenue and West Encanto Boulevard for use as a community garden. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all necessary funds in
accordance with the terms of the license.
Summary
The property was acquired by the Water Services Department using water operating
revenues, Fund 0052, for the purpose of developing a well site. The entire tract is Lot
185 of DEL MONTE VILLAGE 2 (MCR 59-32) and is comprised of approximately 6,630
square feet. The licensed premises, or the area outside the fenced well enclosure, is
approximately 4,710 square feet. The licensed premises are the unused portion of a
Water Services Department well site. The well and its equipment are separately fenced
while the balance of the site is unimproved. Due to size and underlying zoning, the
proposed license area is an uneconomic remnant with few allowable uses. The
community garden will be built, operated, and maintained by the Del Monte Village
Garden Association, in collaboration with community partnership and volunteers. The
garden will supply fresh produce to support local food security initiatives, serve as a
space for bringing neighbors together to grow food, incorporate landscape
enhancements to improve the site's aesthetics, and foster community engagement.
Lessee may display monument and business signs as approved by the City's Planning
and Development Department.
The rental rate is $37.50 per year, plus applicable taxes, which is within the range of
market rents as determined by the Real Estate Division. The licensee shall provide
insurance and indemnification acceptable to the City's Risk Management Division and
the Law Department. The license may be cancelled pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statue 38-511. The license may contain other terms and conditions deemed necessary
by the City.
Contract Term
The term of the license is one year with two, one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
Rent during the initial year of the license is $37.50 per year, plus applicable taxes.
Location
36th Avenue and West Encanto Boulevard
Maricopa County Assessor's Parcel Number: 108-13-015
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services and Finance departments.
Report
Encanto Boulevard to the Del Monte Village Garden Association (Ordinance S-
52516) - District 4
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
license with Del Monte Village Garden Association for vacant City-owned property near
36th Avenue and West Encanto Boulevard for use as a community garden. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all necessary funds in
accordance with the terms of the license.
Summary
The property was acquired by the Water Services Department using water operating
revenues, Fund 0052, for the purpose of developing a well site. The entire tract is Lot
185 of DEL MONTE VILLAGE 2 (MCR 59-32) and is comprised of approximately 6,630
square feet. The licensed premises, or the area outside the fenced well enclosure, is
approximately 4,710 square feet. The licensed premises are the unused portion of a
Water Services Department well site. The well and its equipment are separately fenced
while the balance of the site is unimproved. Due to size and underlying zoning, the
proposed license area is an uneconomic remnant with few allowable uses. The
community garden will be built, operated, and maintained by the Del Monte Village
Garden Association, in collaboration with community partnership and volunteers. The
garden will supply fresh produce to support local food security initiatives, serve as a
space for bringing neighbors together to grow food, incorporate landscape
enhancements to improve the site's aesthetics, and foster community engagement.
Lessee may display monument and business signs as approved by the City's Planning
and Development Department.
The rental rate is $37.50 per year, plus applicable taxes, which is within the range of
market rents as determined by the Real Estate Division. The licensee shall provide
insurance and indemnification acceptable to the City's Risk Management Division and
the Law Department. The license may be cancelled pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statue 38-511. The license may contain other terms and conditions deemed necessary
by the City.
Contract Term
The term of the license is one year with two, one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
Rent during the initial year of the license is $37.50 per year, plus applicable taxes.
Location
36th Avenue and West Encanto Boulevard
Maricopa County Assessor's Parcel Number: 108-13-015
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services and Finance departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Easements for Public Utility, Sidewalk and Multi-
use Trail Purposes (Ordinance S-52525) - Districts 1, 6, 7 & 8
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements for public utility,
sidewalk, and multi-use trail purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal
descriptions are recorded via separate recording instrument.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250675802
Date: November 21, 2025
Applicant and Lessee: SREI Ryan 17 North PHII, LLC; the State of Arizona, Owner
and Lessor; their successor and assigns
Purpose: Temporary Sidewalk
Location: 2525 W. Corporate Center Drive
Expires: (a) the expiration or earlier termination of the property lease, which expires on
September 10, 2100; or (b) the removal of the improvements constructed on the
property.
APN: 210-05-943E
File: FN 250108
Council District: 1
Easement (b)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250675807
Date: November 21, 2025
Applicant and Lessee: SREI Ryan 17 North PHII, LLC; the State of Arizona, Owner
and Lessor; their successor and assigns
Purpose: Temporary Sidewalk
Location: 2350 W. Corporate Center Drive
Expires: (a) the expiration or earlier termination of the property lease, which expires on
September 10, 2100; or (b) the removal of the improvements constructed on the
property.
APN: 210-05-944A
File: FN 250111
Council District: 1
Easement (c)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250669736
Date: November 19, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: H&H Developers LLC; MM Development Group LLC; their
successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 4007 E. Cheery Lynn Road
APN: 127-15-058
File: FN 250109
Council District: 6
Easement (d)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250661984
Date: November 14, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Z-Modular Laveen Flatz 202, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 7250 S. 59th Avenue
APN: 104-86-007H
File: FN 250100
Council District: 7
Easement (e)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250661981
Date: November 14, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Amerco Real Estate Company; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Multi-Use Trail
Location: 2600 S. 59th Avenue
APN: 104-38-006
File: FN 250102
Council District: 7
Easement (f)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250669864
Date: November 19, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Sukhjit K. Sandhu; her successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: West of S. 24th Avenue and W. Olney Avenue
APN: 300-16-030D; 300-16-030E
File: FN 250114
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Report
use Trail Purposes (Ordinance S-52525) - Districts 1, 6, 7 & 8
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements for public utility,
sidewalk, and multi-use trail purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal
descriptions are recorded via separate recording instrument.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250675802
Date: November 21, 2025
Applicant and Lessee: SREI Ryan 17 North PHII, LLC; the State of Arizona, Owner
and Lessor; their successor and assigns
Purpose: Temporary Sidewalk
Location: 2525 W. Corporate Center Drive
Expires: (a) the expiration or earlier termination of the property lease, which expires on
September 10, 2100; or (b) the removal of the improvements constructed on the
property.
APN: 210-05-943E
File: FN 250108
Council District: 1
Easement (b)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250675807
Date: November 21, 2025
Applicant and Lessee: SREI Ryan 17 North PHII, LLC; the State of Arizona, Owner
and Lessor; their successor and assigns
Purpose: Temporary Sidewalk
Location: 2350 W. Corporate Center Drive
Expires: (a) the expiration or earlier termination of the property lease, which expires on
September 10, 2100; or (b) the removal of the improvements constructed on the
property.
APN: 210-05-944A
File: FN 250111
Council District: 1
Easement (c)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250669736
Date: November 19, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: H&H Developers LLC; MM Development Group LLC; their
successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 4007 E. Cheery Lynn Road
APN: 127-15-058
File: FN 250109
Council District: 6
Easement (d)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250661984
Date: November 14, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Z-Modular Laveen Flatz 202, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 7250 S. 59th Avenue
APN: 104-86-007H
File: FN 250100
Council District: 7
Easement (e)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250661981
Date: November 14, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Amerco Real Estate Company; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Multi-Use Trail
Location: 2600 S. 59th Avenue
APN: 104-38-006
File: FN 250102
Council District: 7
Easement (f)
Maricopa County Recording: 20250669864
Date: November 19, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Sukhjit K. Sandhu; her successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: West of S. 24th Avenue and W. Olney Avenue
APN: 300-16-030D; 300-16-030E
File: FN 250114
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance of an Easement for Drainage Purposes Located North of the
Northwest Corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline Road (Ordinance S-52526) -
District 7
Request for the City Council to accept an easement for drainage purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal descriptions are recorded via separate
recording instrument.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement
Maricopa County Recording: 20250661983
Date: November 14, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Z-Modular Laveen Flatz 202, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 7250 S. 59th Avenue
APN: 104-86-007H
File: FN 250100
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Report
Northwest Corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline Road (Ordinance S-52526) -
District 7
Request for the City Council to accept an easement for drainage purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal descriptions are recorded via separate
recording instrument.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement
Maricopa County Recording: 20250661983
Date: November 14, 2025
Applicant and Grantor: Z-Modular Laveen Flatz 202, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 7250 S. 59th Avenue
APN: 104-86-007H
File: FN 250100
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Appraisal Services for Citywide and Aviation Projects - RFQu-25-0706- Request
for Award (Ordinance S-52531) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with ANava Company LLC; Appraisal Technology, LLC; Baker, Peterson,
Baker and Associates, Inc.; BBG, Inc.; CBRE, Inc.; Cushman & Wakefield of Arizona,
Inc.; Dennis L Lopez & Associates, LLC; First Appraisal Services, PLC; Hodges Lacey
& Associates LLC; IRR-Phoenix, LLC; James S. Bradley, LLC; KS Appraisal, LLC;
Landpro Valuation, LLC; Nagy Property Consultants, Inc; REVal Partners PLLC; and
Zaddack Valuation Advisors, Inc., for appraisal and appraisal review services for
Citywide use. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds
related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $2,200,000.
Summary
These contracts will provide the Finance Department Real Estate Division a Qualified
Vendor List (QVL) for appraisal services for Citywide projects on an as-needed basis.
The Real Estate Division contracts for residential appraisals, commercial appraisals,
personal property appraisals, residential appraisal reviews and commercial appraisal
reviews as requested by City departments.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).
Eighteen Offerors submitted qualifications and seventeen were deemed to be
responsive and responsible. An evaluation committee of City Staff evaluated those
offers as a pass or fail based on the following minimum qualifications:
Experience and Knowledge
Workload Capacity
Method of Approach
Resumes and Certifications
Samples
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following Offeror(s):
ANava Company LLC
Appraisal Technology, LLC
Baker, Peterson, Baker and Associates, Inc.
BBG, Inc.
CBRE, Inc.
Cushman & Wakefield of Arizona, Inc.
Dennis L. Lopez & Associates, LLC
First Appraisal Services, PLC
Hodges Lacey & Associates LLC
IRR-Phoenix, LLC
James S. Bradley, LLC
KS Appraisal, LLC
Landpro Valuation, LLC
Nagy Property Consultants, Inc.
REVal Partners PLLC
Zaddack Valuation Advisors, Inc.
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about February 1, 2026, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $2,200,000. Funds are available in the
departments' Operating and Capital Improvement Program budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Report
for Award (Ordinance S-52531) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with ANava Company LLC; Appraisal Technology, LLC; Baker, Peterson,
Baker and Associates, Inc.; BBG, Inc.; CBRE, Inc.; Cushman & Wakefield of Arizona,
Inc.; Dennis L Lopez & Associates, LLC; First Appraisal Services, PLC; Hodges Lacey
& Associates LLC; IRR-Phoenix, LLC; James S. Bradley, LLC; KS Appraisal, LLC;
Landpro Valuation, LLC; Nagy Property Consultants, Inc; REVal Partners PLLC; and
Zaddack Valuation Advisors, Inc., for appraisal and appraisal review services for
Citywide use. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds
related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $2,200,000.
Summary
These contracts will provide the Finance Department Real Estate Division a Qualified
Vendor List (QVL) for appraisal services for Citywide projects on an as-needed basis.
The Real Estate Division contracts for residential appraisals, commercial appraisals,
personal property appraisals, residential appraisal reviews and commercial appraisal
reviews as requested by City departments.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).
Eighteen Offerors submitted qualifications and seventeen were deemed to be
responsive and responsible. An evaluation committee of City Staff evaluated those
offers as a pass or fail based on the following minimum qualifications:
Experience and Knowledge
Workload Capacity
Method of Approach
Resumes and Certifications
Samples
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following Offeror(s):
ANava Company LLC
Appraisal Technology, LLC
Baker, Peterson, Baker and Associates, Inc.
BBG, Inc.
CBRE, Inc.
Cushman & Wakefield of Arizona, Inc.
Dennis L. Lopez & Associates, LLC
First Appraisal Services, PLC
Hodges Lacey & Associates LLC
IRR-Phoenix, LLC
James S. Bradley, LLC
KS Appraisal, LLC
Landpro Valuation, LLC
Nagy Property Consultants, Inc.
REVal Partners PLLC
Zaddack Valuation Advisors, Inc.
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about February 1, 2026, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $2,200,000. Funds are available in the
departments' Operating and Capital Improvement Program budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Extinguish a Public Utility Easement for Edison Park Expansion
Project (Resolution 22355) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to terminate
and extinguish a public utility easement located across two parcels located north and
west of the intersection of N. 19th Street and E. Villa Street, adopted on October 31,
2007 in Ordinance S-34503.
Summary
As part of a planned expansion and redevelopment of Edison Park, the public utility
easement located on the parcels formerly known as the A.L. Krohn public housing site
will need to be terminated and extinguished. As a result, the 14,906 square-foot
dedicated easement is no longer needed by the Housing Department and can be
terminated. The easement is described in the attached Exhibit A.
Location
North and west of the intersection of N. 19th Street and E. Villa Street
Identified by Maricopa County Assessor's parcel numbers: 116-11-001G, 116-11-003,
116-16-070, 116-16-071A, 116-16-071B, 116-16-071C
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing and
Finance departments.
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OFA
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
PARCEL NO. 1
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 1
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
A DESCRIPTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 8 FEET IN WIDTH.
LYING 4 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE AND TO BE PROLONGED OR
SHORTENED TO TERMINATE IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF THE
GRANTOR, SAID CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A BRASS CAP IN HANO HOLE AT THE CENTER OF SAID
5ECTION3;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, A DISTANCE OF
569.66 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 00
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 20TH STREET. SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
349. 76 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A:
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 68.82 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT B;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 175.59 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
116.17 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT C;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
655.81 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT E, SAID POINT
BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND:
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT A;
EXHIBIT A
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
127.44 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
23.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT B;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
27.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT C;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
106.25 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT D, SAID POINT
ALSO BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
ANO;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT 0, SAID POINT ALSO BEING
THE BEGINNING OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 14 FEET IN WIDTH,
LYING 7 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE ANO TO BE PROLONGED OR
SHORTENED TO TERMINATE IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF THE
GRANTOR;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 32.. 11 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND:
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT E;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
91. 76 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
CONTAINING 14,267 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF A
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
PARCEL NO. 2
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 1
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
A DESCRIPTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 8 FEET IN WIDTH,
LYING 4 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE AND TO BE PROLONGED OR
SHORTENED TO TERMINATE IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF THE
GRANTOR, SAID CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE AT THE CENTER OF SAID
SECTION 3;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 02· MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, A DISTANCE OF
682.62 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 00
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1350.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 18TH STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
251.86 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT F;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 292.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT F;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
228.73 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
15.14 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 73 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
11.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
28.10 FEET;
EXHIBIT A
THENCE SOUTH 40 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
18.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 46.DEGREES 25 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
20.51 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 58 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
22.88 FEE1;
THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
27.28 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
35.07 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 80 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
7.74 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 81 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
19_1.92 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 86 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 37 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
104.94 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
118.61 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT G;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 45.06 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
142.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 52 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
21.20 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 07 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
82.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
69.03 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
70.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS FROM WHENCE A CITY OF PHOENIX
BRASS CAP FLUSH AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER BEARS SOUTH 45 DEGREES 15
MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 375.45 FEET.
AND;
EXHIBIT. A
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT G;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
66.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
CONTAINING 14,906 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS
Report
Project (Resolution 22355) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to terminate
and extinguish a public utility easement located across two parcels located north and
west of the intersection of N. 19th Street and E. Villa Street, adopted on October 31,
2007 in Ordinance S-34503.
Summary
As part of a planned expansion and redevelopment of Edison Park, the public utility
easement located on the parcels formerly known as the A.L. Krohn public housing site
will need to be terminated and extinguished. As a result, the 14,906 square-foot
dedicated easement is no longer needed by the Housing Department and can be
terminated. The easement is described in the attached Exhibit A.
Location
North and west of the intersection of N. 19th Street and E. Villa Street
Identified by Maricopa County Assessor's parcel numbers: 116-11-001G, 116-11-003,
116-16-070, 116-16-071A, 116-16-071B, 116-16-071C
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing and
Finance departments.
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OFA
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
PARCEL NO. 1
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 1
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
A DESCRIPTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 8 FEET IN WIDTH.
LYING 4 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE AND TO BE PROLONGED OR
SHORTENED TO TERMINATE IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF THE
GRANTOR, SAID CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A BRASS CAP IN HANO HOLE AT THE CENTER OF SAID
5ECTION3;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, A DISTANCE OF
569.66 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 00
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 20TH STREET. SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
349. 76 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A:
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 68.82 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT B;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 175.59 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
116.17 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT C;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
655.81 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT E, SAID POINT
BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND:
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT A;
EXHIBIT A
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
127.44 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
23.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT B;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
27.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT C;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
106.25 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT D, SAID POINT
ALSO BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
ANO;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT 0, SAID POINT ALSO BEING
THE BEGINNING OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 14 FEET IN WIDTH,
LYING 7 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE ANO TO BE PROLONGED OR
SHORTENED TO TERMINATE IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF THE
GRANTOR;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 32.. 11 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND:
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT E;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
91. 76 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
CONTAINING 14,267 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF A
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
PARCEL NO. 2
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 1
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
A DESCRIPTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 8 FEET IN WIDTH,
LYING 4 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE AND TO BE PROLONGED OR
SHORTENED TO TERMINATE IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF THE
GRANTOR, SAID CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE AT THE CENTER OF SAID
SECTION 3;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 02· MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, A DISTANCE OF
682.62 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 00
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1350.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 18TH STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
251.86 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT F;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 292.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
AND;
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT F;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
228.73 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
15.14 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 73 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
11.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
28.10 FEET;
EXHIBIT A
THENCE SOUTH 40 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
18.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 46.DEGREES 25 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
20.51 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 58 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
22.88 FEE1;
THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
27.28 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
35.07 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 80 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
7.74 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 81 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
19_1.92 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 86 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 37 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
104.94 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
118.61 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT G;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 45.06 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
142.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 52 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
21.20 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 07 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
82.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
69.03 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
70.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS FROM WHENCE A CITY OF PHOENIX
BRASS CAP FLUSH AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER BEARS SOUTH 45 DEGREES 15
MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 375.45 FEET.
AND;
EXHIBIT. A
BEGINNING AT THE AFORE REFERENCED POINT G;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
66.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
CONTAINING 14,906 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Parts, Installation, and Service for Direct Current Battery Plant - IFB 19-020 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-52536) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute an
amendment to Contract 149250 with Power Product Services, LLC, a disregarded
entity of Exponential Power, 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-50454.
Summary
This contract will provide the Information Technology Services Department with parts,
installation, and services for direct current (DC) batteries and power plants across
approximately 130 sites throughout the Valley. The heavy duty batteries, preventative
maintenance, and repairs to direct current (DC) voltage battery backup systems
provide power in critical situations to public systems in the event of power outages.
The maintenance to the DC battery plant results in reduced costs, increased
efficiencies, uninterrupted operations, risk reductions, and improved customer service.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through July 22, 2026.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $3,600,000, and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Parts, Installation, and Service for Direct Current Battery Plant - Contract
(Ordinance S-45326) on January 23, 2019.
· Parts, Installation, and Service for Direct Current Battery Plant - Contract
(Ordinance S-47339) on March 3, 2021.
· Parts, Installation, and Service for Direct Current Battery Plant - Contract
(Ordinance S-50454) on January 3, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager David Mathews and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Report
Amendment (Ordinance S-52536) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute an
amendment to Contract 149250 with Power Product Services, LLC, a disregarded
entity of Exponential Power, 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-50454.
Summary
This contract will provide the Information Technology Services Department with parts,
installation, and services for direct current (DC) batteries and power plants across
approximately 130 sites throughout the Valley. The heavy duty batteries, preventative
maintenance, and repairs to direct current (DC) voltage battery backup systems
provide power in critical situations to public systems in the event of power outages.
The maintenance to the DC battery plant results in reduced costs, increased
efficiencies, uninterrupted operations, risk reductions, and improved customer service.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through July 22, 2026.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $3,600,000, and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Parts, Installation, and Service for Direct Current Battery Plant - Contract
(Ordinance S-45326) on January 23, 2019.
· Parts, Installation, and Service for Direct Current Battery Plant - Contract
(Ordinance S-47339) on March 3, 2021.
· Parts, Installation, and Service for Direct Current Battery Plant - Contract
(Ordinance S-50454) on January 3, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager David Mathews and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Funds (Ordinance
S-52522) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to make a one
-time payment to EMPACT/La Frontera for services provided during the month of
October 2025 pursuant to the Veterans Court Grant and extend the time allowing for
such payment under Ordinance S-45801 through October 29, 2025. The anticipated
amount shall not exceed, $6,219.90. A one-time extension is necessary as the current
ordinance, S-45801, allowing payment to EMPACT/La Frontera terminated on
September 30, 2025. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and
the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item.
Summary
With City Council approval, the Prosecutor's Office has administered grant funds
through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
since December 2016 to fund a Veterans Court service expansion project. The project
has been successful at providing access to substance use disorder treatment for
veterans in Veterans Court that do not otherwise have access to no-cost treatment.
Those services are provided by EMPACT/La Frontera. No renewal or reapplication
process was available through SAMHSA for this year, and accordingly, the Grant was
scheduled to end on July 29, 2025. The Prosecutor's Office applied for a no-cost
extension to continue to provide services and draw down the remaining funding under
the Grant. This request was granted by SAMHSA to continue to provide services and
expend funds through October 29, 2025. EMPACT/La Frontera has rendered
treatment/services for the month of October.
Contract Term
The no-cost extension extended the Grant from July 30, 2025, to October 29, 2025.
Financial Impact
No monetary or in-kind match is required. Funding is from the SAMHSA.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously authorized the Prosecutor's Office to apply for funding for
the City of Phoenix Veterans Court in partnership with EMPACT/La Frontera on June
19, 2019 (Ordinance S-45801).
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department.
Report
S-52522) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to make a one
-time payment to EMPACT/La Frontera for services provided during the month of
October 2025 pursuant to the Veterans Court Grant and extend the time allowing for
such payment under Ordinance S-45801 through October 29, 2025. The anticipated
amount shall not exceed, $6,219.90. A one-time extension is necessary as the current
ordinance, S-45801, allowing payment to EMPACT/La Frontera terminated on
September 30, 2025. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and
the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item.
Summary
With City Council approval, the Prosecutor's Office has administered grant funds
through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
since December 2016 to fund a Veterans Court service expansion project. The project
has been successful at providing access to substance use disorder treatment for
veterans in Veterans Court that do not otherwise have access to no-cost treatment.
Those services are provided by EMPACT/La Frontera. No renewal or reapplication
process was available through SAMHSA for this year, and accordingly, the Grant was
scheduled to end on July 29, 2025. The Prosecutor's Office applied for a no-cost
extension to continue to provide services and draw down the remaining funding under
the Grant. This request was granted by SAMHSA to continue to provide services and
expend funds through October 29, 2025. EMPACT/La Frontera has rendered
treatment/services for the month of October.
Contract Term
The no-cost extension extended the Grant from July 30, 2025, to October 29, 2025.
Financial Impact
No monetary or in-kind match is required. Funding is from the SAMHSA.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously authorized the Prosecutor's Office to apply for funding for
the City of Phoenix Veterans Court in partnership with EMPACT/La Frontera on June
19, 2019 (Ordinance S-45801).
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Legal Document Retrieval Services Agreement for Litigation and Claims with
iCopy Legal (Ordinance S-52537) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
five-year agreement with iCopy Legal to provide services related to formal service of
legal documents and retrieval of official records from providers and/or agencies, as
needed by the Law Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate amount will not exceed
$200,000.
Summary
This agreement will provide necessary services for the Law Department related to
legal document service and official document retrievals, primarily in connection with
litigation or claims, including service of subpoenas and retrieval of relevant official
documents such as medical, hospital, billing, payroll, personnel, insurance claims,
Medicare, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Social Security, police
departments, fire departments, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
employment, and educational records.
Procurement Information
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 43-2(B)(4), legal services are exempt from the
Procurement Code. Nevertheless, pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 43-11(B),
the Law Department conducted an informal procurement using informal competitive
methods and sought quotes from multiple vendors. iCopy Legal was selected.
Contract Term
The Legal Services Agreement will begin on or about January 7, 2026, for a five-year
term with no options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate agreement value will not exceed $200,000 for the five-year term.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department.
Report
iCopy Legal (Ordinance S-52537) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
five-year agreement with iCopy Legal to provide services related to formal service of
legal documents and retrieval of official records from providers and/or agencies, as
needed by the Law Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate amount will not exceed
$200,000.
Summary
This agreement will provide necessary services for the Law Department related to
legal document service and official document retrievals, primarily in connection with
litigation or claims, including service of subpoenas and retrieval of relevant official
documents such as medical, hospital, billing, payroll, personnel, insurance claims,
Medicare, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Social Security, police
departments, fire departments, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
employment, and educational records.
Procurement Information
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 43-2(B)(4), legal services are exempt from the
Procurement Code. Nevertheless, pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 43-11(B),
the Law Department conducted an informal procurement using informal competitive
methods and sought quotes from multiple vendors. iCopy Legal was selected.
Contract Term
The Legal Services Agreement will begin on or about January 7, 2026, for a five-year
term with no options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate agreement value will not exceed $200,000 for the five-year term.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Retroactively Accept and Disburse Funding from the Arizona
Administrative Office of the Courts and from Friends of the Court, Inc., Amend
Emergency Shelter/Heat Related Respite Operator and Supportive Services
Qualified Vendor List and Increase Authority, and Amend Contract 159460 with
Community Bridges, Inc. (Ordinance S-52535) - Citywide
Request authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
retroactively accept funding from the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
to support the veterans court program in the amount of $169,900, and funding in the
amount of $3,000 from Friends of the Court, Inc.
Further request to amend authorization for the Emergency Shelter/Heat Related
Respite Operator and Supportive Services Qualified Vendor List (QVL) to increase
funding in an amount not to exceed $172,900, for a new not to exceed aggregate
amount of $63,626,295. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse funds for the QVL life.
Further request authorization to amend Contract 159460 with Community Bridges, Inc.
to increase funding in an amount up to $172,900 to add Veterans Court navigation and
support services to the existing contract for community court program services. The
revised total contract value will not exceed $1,012,900.
Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to these items.
Summary
The Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS) provides support and services for people
experiencing homelessness and is committed to ending homelessness through a
comprehensive, regional approach to housing and services. Contracts awarded from
the QVL include assistance with City-owned shelter and heat-respite projects,
contractor-operated temporary emergency shelter and heat related respite programs,
Community Court, and other supportive services to individuals or families experiencing
homelessness.
Through the use of the QVL, OHS contracts with Community Bridges, Inc. via Contract
159460 to provide navigation and supportive services for Community Court. The
additional funding from the AOC and Friends of the Court, Inc. will support the addition
of Veterans Court support services including navigation and outside services including
group sessions and drug screening for participants of the Veterans Court. Amending
the existing contract allows OHS to leverage the existing program and infrastructure to
rapidly provide services specific to veterans.
Due to the Citywide impacts of this item, staff is requesting consent of the full Council
under Section 2 of City Council Ordinance S-50419, which requires additional Council
approval for certain uses of the QVL.
Contract Term
The QVL term will remain unchanged, February 1, 2023, through June 30, 2028.
Financial Impact
The aggregate cost of contracts approved under the QVL will not exceed $63,626,295
over the QVL life. Funding is available in the OHS' operating budget and via federal,
state, and county grant funding.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On January 25, 2023, the City Council approved the QVL with Ordinance S-49352.
· On June 28, 2023, the City Council approved an additional $13.3 million in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-49924.
· On December 13, 2023, the City Council approved an additional $6,752,847 in
funding for the QVL with Ordinance S-50419.
· On March 20, 2024, the City Council approved an additional $1,388,933 in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-50706.
· On May 15, 2024, the City Council approved an additional $10.5 million in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-50884.
· On January 15, 2025, the City Council approved an additional $15 million in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-51541.
· On June 4, 2025, the City Council approved an additional $6,511,615 in funding for
the QVL with Ordinance S-52012.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of
Homeless Solutions.
Report
Administrative Office of the Courts and from Friends of the Court, Inc., Amend
Emergency Shelter/Heat Related Respite Operator and Supportive Services
Qualified Vendor List and Increase Authority, and Amend Contract 159460 with
Community Bridges, Inc. (Ordinance S-52535) - Citywide
Request authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
retroactively accept funding from the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
to support the veterans court program in the amount of $169,900, and funding in the
amount of $3,000 from Friends of the Court, Inc.
Further request to amend authorization for the Emergency Shelter/Heat Related
Respite Operator and Supportive Services Qualified Vendor List (QVL) to increase
funding in an amount not to exceed $172,900, for a new not to exceed aggregate
amount of $63,626,295. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse funds for the QVL life.
Further request authorization to amend Contract 159460 with Community Bridges, Inc.
to increase funding in an amount up to $172,900 to add Veterans Court navigation and
support services to the existing contract for community court program services. The
revised total contract value will not exceed $1,012,900.
Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to these items.
Summary
The Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS) provides support and services for people
experiencing homelessness and is committed to ending homelessness through a
comprehensive, regional approach to housing and services. Contracts awarded from
the QVL include assistance with City-owned shelter and heat-respite projects,
contractor-operated temporary emergency shelter and heat related respite programs,
Community Court, and other supportive services to individuals or families experiencing
homelessness.
Through the use of the QVL, OHS contracts with Community Bridges, Inc. via Contract
159460 to provide navigation and supportive services for Community Court. The
additional funding from the AOC and Friends of the Court, Inc. will support the addition
of Veterans Court support services including navigation and outside services including
group sessions and drug screening for participants of the Veterans Court. Amending
the existing contract allows OHS to leverage the existing program and infrastructure to
rapidly provide services specific to veterans.
Due to the Citywide impacts of this item, staff is requesting consent of the full Council
under Section 2 of City Council Ordinance S-50419, which requires additional Council
approval for certain uses of the QVL.
Contract Term
The QVL term will remain unchanged, February 1, 2023, through June 30, 2028.
Financial Impact
The aggregate cost of contracts approved under the QVL will not exceed $63,626,295
over the QVL life. Funding is available in the OHS' operating budget and via federal,
state, and county grant funding.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On January 25, 2023, the City Council approved the QVL with Ordinance S-49352.
· On June 28, 2023, the City Council approved an additional $13.3 million in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-49924.
· On December 13, 2023, the City Council approved an additional $6,752,847 in
funding for the QVL with Ordinance S-50419.
· On March 20, 2024, the City Council approved an additional $1,388,933 in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-50706.
· On May 15, 2024, the City Council approved an additional $10.5 million in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-50884.
· On January 15, 2025, the City Council approved an additional $15 million in funding
for the QVL with Ordinance S-51541.
· On June 4, 2025, the City Council approved an additional $6,511,615 in funding for
the QVL with Ordinance S-52012.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of
Homeless Solutions.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Economic Development Technical Assistance Community Development Block
Grant Award (Ordinance S-52538) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
agreement with HUUB LLC for economic development technical assistance services
through PHXbizConnect, for a one-year term, with a one-year option to be exercised at
the discretion of the City Manager or the City Manager's designee. The total grant
award will not exceed $302,900 per year in Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding, for a maximum total award of $605,800. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Funding is available from
the Neighborhood Services Department's (NSD) CDBG entitlement funds. There is no
impact to the General Fund.
Summary
HUUB LLC provides economic development technical assistance to microenterprises
through PHXbizConnect as a public service to City of Phoenix residents with low-and-
moderate incomes. Historically, the HUUB's online technical assistance services were
funded through federal grant dollars, including Coronavirus Relief Funds, Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, and Community Development Block Grant
funds. Since inception, the program has provided technical assistance, including free,
one-on-one consulting from business advisors to over 220 businesses with over 1,300
hours of consulting services.
Continuation of grant funds for HUUB LLC's PHXbizConnect software platform for
management technical assistance provides significant advantages to City of Phoenix
residents. The software platform reduces program paperwork, provides a streamlined
process with greater self determination, offers additional business training resources,
and collects data for City economic development program administrators.
Contract Term
The 12-month contract term will begin on or about January 7, 2026, with a one-year
option to extend that may be exercised at the discretion of the City Manager or the City
Manager's designee.
Financial Impact
Funding the contract for twelve months will not exceed $302,900 per year, for a
maximum total award of $605,800. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is
available from the Neighborhood Services Department's CDBG entitlement funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Cynthia Aguilar and the Neighborhood
Services Department.
Report
Grant Award (Ordinance S-52538) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
agreement with HUUB LLC for economic development technical assistance services
through PHXbizConnect, for a one-year term, with a one-year option to be exercised at
the discretion of the City Manager or the City Manager's designee. The total grant
award will not exceed $302,900 per year in Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding, for a maximum total award of $605,800. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Funding is available from
the Neighborhood Services Department's (NSD) CDBG entitlement funds. There is no
impact to the General Fund.
Summary
HUUB LLC provides economic development technical assistance to microenterprises
through PHXbizConnect as a public service to City of Phoenix residents with low-and-
moderate incomes. Historically, the HUUB's online technical assistance services were
funded through federal grant dollars, including Coronavirus Relief Funds, Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, and Community Development Block Grant
funds. Since inception, the program has provided technical assistance, including free,
one-on-one consulting from business advisors to over 220 businesses with over 1,300
hours of consulting services.
Continuation of grant funds for HUUB LLC's PHXbizConnect software platform for
management technical assistance provides significant advantages to City of Phoenix
residents. The software platform reduces program paperwork, provides a streamlined
process with greater self determination, offers additional business training resources,
and collects data for City economic development program administrators.
Contract Term
The 12-month contract term will begin on or about January 7, 2026, with a one-year
option to extend that may be exercised at the discretion of the City Manager or the City
Manager's designee.
Financial Impact
Funding the contract for twelve months will not exceed $302,900 per year, for a
maximum total award of $605,800. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is
available from the Neighborhood Services Department's CDBG entitlement funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Cynthia Aguilar and the Neighborhood
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorize Additional Funding to the Miscellaneous Building Repairs Contracts
(Ordinance S-52520) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to add
additional funding to contracts with Andrus Properties, Inc. dba API General
Contractors (Contract 159779); CHASSE Building Team, Inc. (Contract 159778); DMS
Companies, Inc. dba Hernandez (Contract 159777); GCON, Inc. (Contract 159776);
Haydon Companies, LLC (Contract 159775); Sagebrush Restoration, LLC (Contract
159774); Skyline Builders & Restoration, Inc. (Contract 159773); Tusk Developers LLC
(Contract 159772); and Welch Companies, Inc. (Contract 159771) for the Parks and
Recreation Department. Further request the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional funding will not exceed $50 million.
Summary
The Miscellaneous Building Repairs contracts provide commercial maintenance,
incidental building repairs, and tenant improvements repairs. These services are used
on an as-needed basis to provide urgent and planned projects support for the
department's facilities that require one-time, ongoing building repairs or improvements
or on-call emergency services.
The Parks and Recreation Department’s inventory consists of 189 parks and over 495
buildings, which include community centers, historic houses, restrooms, and
maintenance buildings. The additional funding is needed to ensure continued
maintenance and repair of the department’s essential infrastructure. These contracts
allow the department flexibility and quicker reaction time to respond to community
needs in order to maintain safe and accessible parks and facilities. These contracts
have been used to repair and replace drinking fountains, re-lamp parks with LED
lighting, perform parking lot repairs, address sidewalk cracks, and complete Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) trip hazards. In addition to these projects, the contracts
provide services for urgent and planned projects, such as painting, flooring, and
plumbing repairs to community centers.
Contract Term
The contracts' term remains unchanged, having a duration of five years starting on
December 1, 2023, with one, two-year option to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value for all contracts will not exceed $110 million, with approximately
$10 million expended annually for the remainder of the contract term. Funding is
available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Operating and Capital
Improvement Program budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Miscellaneous Building Repairs Contract - PKS RFQu-240080 (Ordinance S-50427)
on December 13, 2023.
· Authorize Additional Funding to the Miscellaneous Building Repairs Contracts
(Ordinance S-51311) on October 2, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Cynthia Aguilar and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Report
(Ordinance S-52520) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to add
additional funding to contracts with Andrus Properties, Inc. dba API General
Contractors (Contract 159779); CHASSE Building Team, Inc. (Contract 159778); DMS
Companies, Inc. dba Hernandez (Contract 159777); GCON, Inc. (Contract 159776);
Haydon Companies, LLC (Contract 159775); Sagebrush Restoration, LLC (Contract
159774); Skyline Builders & Restoration, Inc. (Contract 159773); Tusk Developers LLC
(Contract 159772); and Welch Companies, Inc. (Contract 159771) for the Parks and
Recreation Department. Further request the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional funding will not exceed $50 million.
Summary
The Miscellaneous Building Repairs contracts provide commercial maintenance,
incidental building repairs, and tenant improvements repairs. These services are used
on an as-needed basis to provide urgent and planned projects support for the
department's facilities that require one-time, ongoing building repairs or improvements
or on-call emergency services.
The Parks and Recreation Department’s inventory consists of 189 parks and over 495
buildings, which include community centers, historic houses, restrooms, and
maintenance buildings. The additional funding is needed to ensure continued
maintenance and repair of the department’s essential infrastructure. These contracts
allow the department flexibility and quicker reaction time to respond to community
needs in order to maintain safe and accessible parks and facilities. These contracts
have been used to repair and replace drinking fountains, re-lamp parks with LED
lighting, perform parking lot repairs, address sidewalk cracks, and complete Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) trip hazards. In addition to these projects, the contracts
provide services for urgent and planned projects, such as painting, flooring, and
plumbing repairs to community centers.
Contract Term
The contracts' term remains unchanged, having a duration of five years starting on
December 1, 2023, with one, two-year option to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value for all contracts will not exceed $110 million, with approximately
$10 million expended annually for the remainder of the contract term. Funding is
available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Operating and Capital
Improvement Program budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Miscellaneous Building Repairs Contract - PKS RFQu-240080 (Ordinance S-50427)
on December 13, 2023.
· Authorize Additional Funding to the Miscellaneous Building Repairs Contracts
(Ordinance S-51311) on October 2, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Cynthia Aguilar and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Issuance of Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Valley College of
Osteopathic Medicine Project), Series 2026 (Resolution 22360) - District 3
Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Taxable Educational Facilities
Revenue Bonds (Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine Project), Series 2026, to be
issued in one or more separate series and subseries, in an aggregate original principal
amount not to exceed $100,000,000 (the “Bonds”).
Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of the
proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue its Taxable Educational
Facilities Revenue Bonds (Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine Project), Series
2026, to be issued in one or more separate series and subseries, in an aggregate
original principal amount of not-to-exceed $100,000,000, for use by The Valley College
of Osteopathic Medicine LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Borrower”), to
finance, and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the costs of the acquisition,
construction, and equipping of a facility (the “Facility”), for the operation of a college of
osteopathic medicine, including the payment and discharge of that certain
indebtedness incurred by the Borrower and The Valley COM Propco LLC (“Propco”), a
Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to a Construction Loan and Security
Agreement, by and between the Borrower and Propco, as borrower thereunder, and
Lapis Municipal Opportunities Fund V, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, as lender. In
addition, to fund the Debt Service Reserve fund established pursuant to the Indenture,
fund capitalized interest with respect to the Bonds, fund the Repair and Replacement
Fund established pursuant to the Indenture, fund working capital requirements of the
Borrower, and pay certain costs of issuance (collectively, the “Project”); and approve
the plan of financing for the Project, for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Bonds at its meeting held
on December 18, 2025.
Location
The Facility is located at or near 2525 W. Townley Avenue, Phoenix, AZ.
Council District: 3
With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit with the state.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE
OF ONE OR MORE SEPARATE SERIES AND SUBSERIES, IN AN AGGREGATE
T
ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $100,000,000, OF
TAXABLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (VALLEY
OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE PROJECT) OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
COLLEGE
INDUSTRIAL
AF _______________
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Issuer”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section
R
35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Issuer to issue revenue bonds for
the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans
to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or
D
operation of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the
Issuer finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Issuer or the public
interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance the
costs of a “project” when the Board of Directors of the Issuer finds such loans to be in
furtherance of the purposes of the Authority or in the public interest; and
1 Resolution No. _____
WHEREAS, The Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the “Borrower”) has requested that the Issuer issue, in one or
more separate series and subseries, its Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds
(Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine Project) (the “Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture
of Trust (the “Indenture”), between the Issuer and U.S. Bank National Association, as
trustee (the “Trustee”), and enter into a Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”), between the
T
Issuer and the Borrower, pursuant to which the Issuer will loan the proceeds of the Bonds
to the Borrower in order to (i) finance or refinance a portion of the costs of acquiring,
constructing and equipping a facility (the “Facility”) for the operation of a college of
AF
osteopathic medicine, including the payment and discharge of that certain indebtedness
incurred by the Borrower and The Valley COM Propco LLC (“Propco”), a limited liability
company duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
pursuant to a Construction Loan and Security Agreement, by and between the Borrower
and Propco, as borrower thereunder, and Lapis Municipal Opportunities Fund V, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership, as lender; (ii) fund the Debt Service Reserve Fund
R
established pursuant to the Indenture; (iii) fund capitalized interest with respect to the
Bonds; (iv) fund the Repair and Replacement Fund established pursuant to the Indenture;
(v) fund working capital requirements of the Borrower; and (vi) pay certain costs of
D
issuance (collectively, the “Project”), all in accordance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer, by Resolution 2025-__, duly adopted by the Board
of Directors of the Issuer at a lawful meeting called and held on December 18, 2025,
granted approval of the issuance and sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $100,000,000; and
2 Resolution No. _____
WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of
the Issuer under which the Bonds are to be issued require the approval of the Council of
the City; and
WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the
proceeds of the Bonds has been presented to the Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by
T
the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act with respect to the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:
AF SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Issuer under which the Bonds are to
be issued are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby
given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the
extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.
R
D
3 Resolution No. _____
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this ___ day
of January ___, 2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
T
AF
REVIEWED BY:
Acting City Attorney
City Manager
R
D
4 Resolution No. _____
Report
Osteopathic Medicine Project), Series 2026 (Resolution 22360) - District 3
Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Taxable Educational Facilities
Revenue Bonds (Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine Project), Series 2026, to be
issued in one or more separate series and subseries, in an aggregate original principal
amount not to exceed $100,000,000 (the “Bonds”).
Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of the
proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue its Taxable Educational
Facilities Revenue Bonds (Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine Project), Series
2026, to be issued in one or more separate series and subseries, in an aggregate
original principal amount of not-to-exceed $100,000,000, for use by The Valley College
of Osteopathic Medicine LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Borrower”), to
finance, and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the costs of the acquisition,
construction, and equipping of a facility (the “Facility”), for the operation of a college of
osteopathic medicine, including the payment and discharge of that certain
indebtedness incurred by the Borrower and The Valley COM Propco LLC (“Propco”), a
Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to a Construction Loan and Security
Agreement, by and between the Borrower and Propco, as borrower thereunder, and
Lapis Municipal Opportunities Fund V, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, as lender. In
addition, to fund the Debt Service Reserve fund established pursuant to the Indenture,
fund capitalized interest with respect to the Bonds, fund the Repair and Replacement
Fund established pursuant to the Indenture, fund working capital requirements of the
Borrower, and pay certain costs of issuance (collectively, the “Project”); and approve
the plan of financing for the Project, for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Bonds at its meeting held
on December 18, 2025.
Location
The Facility is located at or near 2525 W. Townley Avenue, Phoenix, AZ.
Council District: 3
With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit with the state.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE
OF ONE OR MORE SEPARATE SERIES AND SUBSERIES, IN AN AGGREGATE
T
ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $100,000,000, OF
TAXABLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (VALLEY
OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE PROJECT) OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
COLLEGE
INDUSTRIAL
AF _______________
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Issuer”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section
R
35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Issuer to issue revenue bonds for
the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans
to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or
D
operation of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the
Issuer finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Issuer or the public
interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance the
costs of a “project” when the Board of Directors of the Issuer finds such loans to be in
furtherance of the purposes of the Authority or in the public interest; and
1 Resolution No. _____
WHEREAS, The Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the “Borrower”) has requested that the Issuer issue, in one or
more separate series and subseries, its Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds
(Valley College of Osteopathic Medicine Project) (the “Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture
of Trust (the “Indenture”), between the Issuer and U.S. Bank National Association, as
trustee (the “Trustee”), and enter into a Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”), between the
T
Issuer and the Borrower, pursuant to which the Issuer will loan the proceeds of the Bonds
to the Borrower in order to (i) finance or refinance a portion of the costs of acquiring,
constructing and equipping a facility (the “Facility”) for the operation of a college of
AF
osteopathic medicine, including the payment and discharge of that certain indebtedness
incurred by the Borrower and The Valley COM Propco LLC (“Propco”), a limited liability
company duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
pursuant to a Construction Loan and Security Agreement, by and between the Borrower
and Propco, as borrower thereunder, and Lapis Municipal Opportunities Fund V, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership, as lender; (ii) fund the Debt Service Reserve Fund
R
established pursuant to the Indenture; (iii) fund capitalized interest with respect to the
Bonds; (iv) fund the Repair and Replacement Fund established pursuant to the Indenture;
(v) fund working capital requirements of the Borrower; and (vi) pay certain costs of
D
issuance (collectively, the “Project”), all in accordance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer, by Resolution 2025-__, duly adopted by the Board
of Directors of the Issuer at a lawful meeting called and held on December 18, 2025,
granted approval of the issuance and sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $100,000,000; and
2 Resolution No. _____
WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of
the Issuer under which the Bonds are to be issued require the approval of the Council of
the City; and
WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the
proceeds of the Bonds has been presented to the Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by
T
the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act with respect to the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:
AF SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Issuer under which the Bonds are to
be issued are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby
given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the
extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.
R
D
3 Resolution No. _____
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this ___ day
of January ___, 2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
T
AF
REVIEWED BY:
Acting City Attorney
City Manager
R
D
4 Resolution No. _____
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Issuance of Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (SSS Academy Project)
(Resolution 22361) - District 2
Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Educational Facilities Revenue
Bonds (SSS Academy Project), to be issued in one or more separate taxable or tax-
exempt series and subseries, in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed
$35,000,000 (the “Bonds”).
Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of the
proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue its Educational Facilities
Revenue Bonds (SSS Academy Project), in one or more separate taxable or tax-
exempt series and subseries, in an aggregate principal amount of not-to-exceed
$35,000,000, for use by SSS Academy, an Arizona nonprofit corporation and tax-
exempt charitable organization under Section 501-(c)-(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) (together with its successors, assignees and
designees, the “Borrower”), to finance, and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion
of the costs of the acquisition, construction, completion, and equipping of arena facility
improvements to be used as educational facilities by the Borrower, (the “Facilities”),
funding a debt service reserve fund, funding working capital and capitalized interest on
such bonds, and paying certain costs of issuance of such bonds (collectively, the
“Project”); and approve the plan of financing for the Project, for purposes of Section
147(f) of the Code.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Bonds at its meeting held
on December 18, 2025.
Location
The Facility is located at or near 2727 W. Bronco Butte Trail, Phoenix, AZ.
Council District: 2
With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit within the
State.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE,
IN ONE OR MORE SEPARATE TAXABLE OR TAX-EXEMPT SERIES AND
SUBSERIES, OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $35,000,000 OF
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (SSS ACADEMY
PROJECT) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
T
_______________
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
AF
Arizona (the “Issuer”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section
35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Issuer to issue revenue bonds for
the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans
R
to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or
operation of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the
Issuer finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Issuer or the public
D
interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance the
costs of a “project” when the Board of Directors of the Issuer finds such loans to be in
furtherance of the purposes of the Authority or in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, SSS Academy, an Arizona nonprofit corporation (the
“Borrower” has requested that the Issuer issue, in one or more separate taxable or tax-
1 Resolution No. _____
exempt series and subseries, its Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (SSS Academy
Project) (the “Bonds”), pursuant to a First Supplement Indenture of Trust (the “Indenture”),
between the Issuer and UMB Bank, National Association (the “Trustee”), and enter into a
First Amendment to the Loan and Security Agreement (the “Agreement”), between the
Issuer and the Borrower, pursuant to which the Issuer will finance or refinance a portion
of the costs of (a) the acquisition, construction, completion and equipping of arena facility
T
improvements located at 2727 W Bronco Butte Trail, Phoenix, Arizona, to be used as
educational facilities by the Borrower (the “Facilities”); (b) funding a debt service reserve
fund; (c) funding working capital and capitalized interest on the Bonds; and (d) paying
AF
certain costs of issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the “Project”), all in accordance with
the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer, by Resolution 2025-__, duly adopted by the Board
of Directors of the Issuer at a lawful meeting called and held on December 18, 2025,
granted approval of the issuance of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $35,000,000; and
R WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of
the Issuer under which the Bonds are to be issued require the approval of the Council of
the City; and
D WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that an “applicable elected
representative” (as that term is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the Bonds
and the plan of finance for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing
was held by the Authority on December __, 2025; and
WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the
2 Resolution No. _____
proceeds of the Bonds has been presented to the Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by
the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable
elected representative” as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:
T
SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Issuer under which the Bonds are to
be issued are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The issuance of the Bonds and the plan of finance for the
AF
Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.
SECTION 3. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby
given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the
extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.
R
D
3 Resolution No. _____
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this ___ day
of January ___, 2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
T
AF
REVIEWED BY:
Acting City Attorney
City Manager
R
D
4 Resolution No. _____
Report
(Resolution 22361) - District 2
Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Educational Facilities Revenue
Bonds (SSS Academy Project), to be issued in one or more separate taxable or tax-
exempt series and subseries, in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed
$35,000,000 (the “Bonds”).
Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of the
proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue its Educational Facilities
Revenue Bonds (SSS Academy Project), in one or more separate taxable or tax-
exempt series and subseries, in an aggregate principal amount of not-to-exceed
$35,000,000, for use by SSS Academy, an Arizona nonprofit corporation and tax-
exempt charitable organization under Section 501-(c)-(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) (together with its successors, assignees and
designees, the “Borrower”), to finance, and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion
of the costs of the acquisition, construction, completion, and equipping of arena facility
improvements to be used as educational facilities by the Borrower, (the “Facilities”),
funding a debt service reserve fund, funding working capital and capitalized interest on
such bonds, and paying certain costs of issuance of such bonds (collectively, the
“Project”); and approve the plan of financing for the Project, for purposes of Section
147(f) of the Code.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Bonds at its meeting held
on December 18, 2025.
Location
The Facility is located at or near 2727 W. Bronco Butte Trail, Phoenix, AZ.
Council District: 2
With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit within the
State.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE,
IN ONE OR MORE SEPARATE TAXABLE OR TAX-EXEMPT SERIES AND
SUBSERIES, OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $35,000,000 OF
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (SSS ACADEMY
PROJECT) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
T
_______________
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
AF
Arizona (the “Issuer”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section
35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Issuer to issue revenue bonds for
the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans
R
to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or
operation of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the
Issuer finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Issuer or the public
D
interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance the
costs of a “project” when the Board of Directors of the Issuer finds such loans to be in
furtherance of the purposes of the Authority or in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, SSS Academy, an Arizona nonprofit corporation (the
“Borrower” has requested that the Issuer issue, in one or more separate taxable or tax-
1 Resolution No. _____
exempt series and subseries, its Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (SSS Academy
Project) (the “Bonds”), pursuant to a First Supplement Indenture of Trust (the “Indenture”),
between the Issuer and UMB Bank, National Association (the “Trustee”), and enter into a
First Amendment to the Loan and Security Agreement (the “Agreement”), between the
Issuer and the Borrower, pursuant to which the Issuer will finance or refinance a portion
of the costs of (a) the acquisition, construction, completion and equipping of arena facility
T
improvements located at 2727 W Bronco Butte Trail, Phoenix, Arizona, to be used as
educational facilities by the Borrower (the “Facilities”); (b) funding a debt service reserve
fund; (c) funding working capital and capitalized interest on the Bonds; and (d) paying
AF
certain costs of issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the “Project”), all in accordance with
the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer, by Resolution 2025-__, duly adopted by the Board
of Directors of the Issuer at a lawful meeting called and held on December 18, 2025,
granted approval of the issuance of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $35,000,000; and
R WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of
the Issuer under which the Bonds are to be issued require the approval of the Council of
the City; and
D WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that an “applicable elected
representative” (as that term is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the Bonds
and the plan of finance for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing
was held by the Authority on December __, 2025; and
WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the
2 Resolution No. _____
proceeds of the Bonds has been presented to the Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by
the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable
elected representative” as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:
T
SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Issuer under which the Bonds are to
be issued are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The issuance of the Bonds and the plan of finance for the
AF
Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.
SECTION 3. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby
given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the
extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.
R
D
3 Resolution No. _____
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this ___ day
of January ___, 2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
T
AF
REVIEWED BY:
Acting City Attorney
City Manager
R
D
4 Resolution No. _____
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Execute Short-term Licenses and Agreements with the United
States of America for Use and Access onto City-Owned Property (Ordinance S-
52523) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute
short-term licenses and agreements with the United States of America (United States)
for use of and access onto City-owned property to conduct various military training
exercises and activities. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to include
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions, if required, that would otherwise
be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.
Summary
The United States through its military branches, in coordination with the Police and/or
Fire departments, periodically conduct training on City-owned property to assist in
responding to incidents that involve national security defense. The City will enter into a
license or use agreement (Agreement) for each training exercise to be conducted on a
City-owned property. Each agreement will contain insurance and indemnification
acceptable to the City's Risk Management Division and the Law Department. Other
terms and conditions deemed necessary by the City may be included in each
Agreement.
Contract Term
Authorization will include exercises and activities from January 1, 2026, through
December 31, 2029.
Financial Impact
There is no fee associated with each Agreement. The United States is responsible for
all costs related to the exercise and/or activity.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· Ordinance S-50338 will expire on December 31, 2025.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Report
States of America for Use and Access onto City-Owned Property (Ordinance S-
52523) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute
short-term licenses and agreements with the United States of America (United States)
for use of and access onto City-owned property to conduct various military training
exercises and activities. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to include
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions, if required, that would otherwise
be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.
Summary
The United States through its military branches, in coordination with the Police and/or
Fire departments, periodically conduct training on City-owned property to assist in
responding to incidents that involve national security defense. The City will enter into a
license or use agreement (Agreement) for each training exercise to be conducted on a
City-owned property. Each agreement will contain insurance and indemnification
acceptable to the City's Risk Management Division and the Law Department. Other
terms and conditions deemed necessary by the City may be included in each
Agreement.
Contract Term
Authorization will include exercises and activities from January 1, 2026, through
December 31, 2029.
Financial Impact
There is no fee associated with each Agreement. The United States is responsible for
all costs related to the exercise and/or activity.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· Ordinance S-50338 will expire on December 31, 2025.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Retroactive Authorization to Apply for Fiscal Year 2025 Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force Program (Ordinance S-52530) - Citywide
Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's
designee, to allow the Police Department to apply for, accept, and enter into an
agreement with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for the 2025
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program for an amount not to
exceed $599,519. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Phoenix Police Department commands the Arizona ICAC Task Force and has
received funding through this source annually for the past several years. The goal of
the Task Force is to improve effectiveness to prevent, interdict, investigate, and
prosecute internet crimes against children and child exploitation. The Arizona ICAC
Task Force is partnered with 74 law enforcement agencies statewide. Since 2006, the
Arizona ICAC Task Force has conducted numerous investigations resulting in the
incarceration of several offenders and provided preventative training presentations to
children, parents, and community groups to educate them on how to protect children
from internet crimes.
If awarded, grant funds will be used to continue reimbursing the City for the salary and
fringe benefits for one sergeant position, overtime and related fringe benefits for
various task force personnel, supplies, travel, training, equipment, and
contracts/consultants to support the task force investigations. Funds are also shared
statewide through a program that assists agencies throughout Arizona to purchase
equipment and attend training.
The invitation to apply for the Grant was not received until November 19, 2025, and
the grant application was due on December 8, 2025. If authorization is denied, the
grant application will be rescinded.
Contract Term
The contract term is from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2027.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Report
Children Task Force Program (Ordinance S-52530) - Citywide
Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's
designee, to allow the Police Department to apply for, accept, and enter into an
agreement with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for the 2025
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program for an amount not to
exceed $599,519. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Phoenix Police Department commands the Arizona ICAC Task Force and has
received funding through this source annually for the past several years. The goal of
the Task Force is to improve effectiveness to prevent, interdict, investigate, and
prosecute internet crimes against children and child exploitation. The Arizona ICAC
Task Force is partnered with 74 law enforcement agencies statewide. Since 2006, the
Arizona ICAC Task Force has conducted numerous investigations resulting in the
incarceration of several offenders and provided preventative training presentations to
children, parents, and community groups to educate them on how to protect children
from internet crimes.
If awarded, grant funds will be used to continue reimbursing the City for the salary and
fringe benefits for one sergeant position, overtime and related fringe benefits for
various task force personnel, supplies, travel, training, equipment, and
contracts/consultants to support the task force investigations. Funds are also shared
statewide through a program that assists agencies throughout Arizona to purchase
equipment and attend training.
The invitation to apply for the Grant was not received until November 19, 2025, and
the grant application was due on December 8, 2025. If authorization is denied, the
grant application will be rescinded.
Contract Term
The contract term is from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2027.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Apply for National Safety Council Fiscal Year 2026 Road to Zero
Community Traffic Safety Grant Program (Ordinance S-52533) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow the
Police Department to apply for, accept, and enter into an agreement with the National
Safety Council for the Fiscal Year 2026 Road to Zero Community Traffic Safety Grant
Program. The grant amount is not to exceed $200,000. No matching funds are
required. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department is requesting approval to apply for the 2026 Road to Zero
Community Traffic Safety Grant Program. This grant program, administered by the
National Safety Council in partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation,
supports innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce traffic fatalities and serious
injuries. If awarded, the funding will support a one-year initiative focused on improving
roadway safety through planning, implementation, and evaluation of targeted
interventions that align with national best practices.
The proposed project will support the City of Phoenix’s commitment to Vision Zero by
advancing a Safe System Approach that prioritizes the safety of all road users,
especially the most vulnerable. The initiative will be designed to reduce preventable
crashes, address disparities in traffic safety, and promote a culture of shared
responsibility on the road. The Police Department will develop a comprehensive
program that can be scaled or replicated, contributing to the broader goal of
eliminating traffic-related deaths and serious injuries in Phoenix.
The grant application is due on January 16, 2026.
Contract Term
The contract term is for two years from the date of the approved award.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Report
Community Traffic Safety Grant Program (Ordinance S-52533) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow the
Police Department to apply for, accept, and enter into an agreement with the National
Safety Council for the Fiscal Year 2026 Road to Zero Community Traffic Safety Grant
Program. The grant amount is not to exceed $200,000. No matching funds are
required. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department is requesting approval to apply for the 2026 Road to Zero
Community Traffic Safety Grant Program. This grant program, administered by the
National Safety Council in partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation,
supports innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce traffic fatalities and serious
injuries. If awarded, the funding will support a one-year initiative focused on improving
roadway safety through planning, implementation, and evaluation of targeted
interventions that align with national best practices.
The proposed project will support the City of Phoenix’s commitment to Vision Zero by
advancing a Safe System Approach that prioritizes the safety of all road users,
especially the most vulnerable. The initiative will be designed to reduce preventable
crashes, address disparities in traffic safety, and promote a culture of shared
responsibility on the road. The Police Department will develop a comprehensive
program that can be scaled or replicated, contributing to the broader goal of
eliminating traffic-related deaths and serious injuries in Phoenix.
The grant application is due on January 16, 2026.
Contract Term
The contract term is for two years from the date of the approved award.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Taxicab Services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Contract - RCS 25-
0612 - Award Recommendation (Ordinance S-52539) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute
separate contracts with Mayflower Cab Company, LLC and Apache Taxi LLC to
provide taxicab services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX). The
contracts will have a term of five years with one two-year option to extend the term that
may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Aviation Director. The contracts are
estimated to produce $5 million in revenue over the seven-year contract term.
Summary
On June 4, 2025, the Phoenix City Council authorized the issuance of a revenue
contract solicitation (RCS) seeking two large-company and two small-company
contracting opportunities for taxicab services at PHX. The goal of the contracts is to
maintain a high level of reliable, on-demand taxicab availability at PHX terminals to
meet passenger demands.
Procurement Information
An RCS procurement was completed according to City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10.
No responses were received for the large-company category. Five vendors submitted
responses for the small-company category. The responses were reviewed for
responsiveness and three submittals were deemed nonresponsive.
Group 1 - Large Company
Group 2 - Small Company (2A: 100-percent owner/operator and 2B: non-100-percent
owner/operator)
The evaluation panel reviewed the two responsive submittals according to the
following published criteria:
· Business and Operations Plan
· Qualifications and Experience of the Respondent
· Qualifications and Experience of the General Manager
· Customer Service Plan
· Franchisee/Owner/Operator Plan
The following proposers were selected for award:
· Group 2A - Small Company (100-percent owner/operator) Mayflower Cab
Company, LLC
· Group 2B - Small Company (non-100-percent owner/operator) Apache Taxi LLC
Public Outreach
In collaboration with the Equal Opportunity Department, staff conducted business
information meetings on May 5, 2025, and June 6, 2025, respectively. The RCS was
advertised in the City's procurement portal and local and national publications,
including Airport Council International North America, American Association of Airport
Executives, and FAA DBE Connect.
Contract Term
The term of the contracts will begin on or about February 1, 2026, for a five-year initial
term with one two-year option to extend the term at the sole discretion of the Aviation
Director for an aggregate seven-year contract term.
Financial Impact
The contracts are estimated to generate $5 million in revenue to the City over the
seven-year contract term.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee:
· Recommended approval of this item on October 3, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board:
· Recommended approval this item on November 20, 2025, by a vote of 6-0.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning City Council Subcommittee:
· Recommended approval of this item on December 17, 2025, by a vote of 4-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road, Phoenix, AZ
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Frank McCune and the Aviation
Department.
Report
0612 - Award Recommendation (Ordinance S-52539) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute
separate contracts with Mayflower Cab Company, LLC and Apache Taxi LLC to
provide taxicab services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX). The
contracts will have a term of five years with one two-year option to extend the term that
may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Aviation Director. The contracts are
estimated to produce $5 million in revenue over the seven-year contract term.
Summary
On June 4, 2025, the Phoenix City Council authorized the issuance of a revenue
contract solicitation (RCS) seeking two large-company and two small-company
contracting opportunities for taxicab services at PHX. The goal of the contracts is to
maintain a high level of reliable, on-demand taxicab availability at PHX terminals to
meet passenger demands.
Procurement Information
An RCS procurement was completed according to City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10.
No responses were received for the large-company category. Five vendors submitted
responses for the small-company category. The responses were reviewed for
responsiveness and three submittals were deemed nonresponsive.
Group 1 - Large Company
Group 2 - Small Company (2A: 100-percent owner/operator and 2B: non-100-percent
owner/operator)
The evaluation panel reviewed the two responsive submittals according to the
following published criteria:
· Business and Operations Plan
· Qualifications and Experience of the Respondent
· Qualifications and Experience of the General Manager
· Customer Service Plan
· Franchisee/Owner/Operator Plan
The following proposers were selected for award:
· Group 2A - Small Company (100-percent owner/operator) Mayflower Cab
Company, LLC
· Group 2B - Small Company (non-100-percent owner/operator) Apache Taxi LLC
Public Outreach
In collaboration with the Equal Opportunity Department, staff conducted business
information meetings on May 5, 2025, and June 6, 2025, respectively. The RCS was
advertised in the City's procurement portal and local and national publications,
including Airport Council International North America, American Association of Airport
Executives, and FAA DBE Connect.
Contract Term
The term of the contracts will begin on or about February 1, 2026, for a five-year initial
term with one two-year option to extend the term at the sole discretion of the Aviation
Director for an aggregate seven-year contract term.
Financial Impact
The contracts are estimated to generate $5 million in revenue to the City over the
seven-year contract term.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee:
· Recommended approval of this item on October 3, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board:
· Recommended approval this item on November 20, 2025, by a vote of 6-0.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning City Council Subcommittee:
· Recommended approval of this item on December 17, 2025, by a vote of 4-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road, Phoenix, AZ
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Frank McCune and the Aviation
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
New Cargo Facility Lease with Alvest Equipment Services (USA) LLC at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport (Ordinance S-52540) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a new cargo
facility lease agreement with Alvest Equipment Services (USA) LLC (AES) for
approximately 1,920 square feet of space in West Cargo Complex Building A at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX).
Summary
AES currently provides ground support equipment and maintenance services to Alaska
Airlines. Recently, AES began providing ground support equipment and maintenance
services for Unifi Aviation, LLC, a commercial ground handling provider supporting
Frontier Airlines. The proposed cargo facility lease of Bay 16 of Building A in the West
Air Cargo complex will expand AES's capacity for operations and its capability to
support additional airline clients at PHX.
Contract Term
The lease term will be three years with three one-year options to extend the term that
may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Aviation Director.
Financial Impact
AES will pay the rental rate per square foot per year according to the Airport Rates and
Charges Program authorized under Phoenix City Code Section 4-173(B). The rental
rate will be adjusted annually according to the Rates and Charges provisions under
Chapter 4, Article IX of the Phoenix City Code. Annual rent for the first year will be
approximately $38,016, and total revenue expected during the term of the lease will be
approximately $228,096, if all options are exercised.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee,
approved this item on November 6, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board approved this item on November 20, 2025, by a
vote of 6-0.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee approved this item on
December 17, 2025, by a vote of 4-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road, Phoenix, AZ
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Frank McCune and the Aviation
Department.
Report
Sky Harbor International Airport (Ordinance S-52540) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a new cargo
facility lease agreement with Alvest Equipment Services (USA) LLC (AES) for
approximately 1,920 square feet of space in West Cargo Complex Building A at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX).
Summary
AES currently provides ground support equipment and maintenance services to Alaska
Airlines. Recently, AES began providing ground support equipment and maintenance
services for Unifi Aviation, LLC, a commercial ground handling provider supporting
Frontier Airlines. The proposed cargo facility lease of Bay 16 of Building A in the West
Air Cargo complex will expand AES's capacity for operations and its capability to
support additional airline clients at PHX.
Contract Term
The lease term will be three years with three one-year options to extend the term that
may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Aviation Director.
Financial Impact
AES will pay the rental rate per square foot per year according to the Airport Rates and
Charges Program authorized under Phoenix City Code Section 4-173(B). The rental
rate will be adjusted annually according to the Rates and Charges provisions under
Chapter 4, Article IX of the Phoenix City Code. Annual rent for the first year will be
approximately $38,016, and total revenue expected during the term of the lease will be
approximately $228,096, if all options are exercised.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee,
approved this item on November 6, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board approved this item on November 20, 2025, by a
vote of 6-0.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee approved this item on
December 17, 2025, by a vote of 4-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road, Phoenix, AZ
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Frank McCune and the Aviation
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Executive Hangar Lease Agreement with Jackson Jet Center, LLC at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport (Ordinance S-52541) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an executive hangar lease agreement with Jackson Jet Center LLC (Jackson Jet) at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX).
Summary
Jackson Jet operates a full-service fixed base operator business at PHX and has
requested to lease a vacant executive hangar consisting of approximately 5,449
square feet of hangar and adjoining office space.
Contract Term
The lease term will be approximately three years and expire on or about December 31,
2027. The lease will include three one-year options to extend the term that may be
exercised at the sole discretion of the Aviation Director.
Financial Impact
Annual rent for the first year of the lease term is anticipated to be approximately
$45,727.87. Rent will be adjusted annually based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
Consumer Price Index or three percent, whichever is greater. Total revenue during the
term of the lease will be approximately $228,639, if all options to extend are exercised.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee,
approved this item on December 4, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board approved this item on November 20, 2025, by a
vote of 6-0.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee approved this item on
December 17, 2025, by a vote of 4-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road, Phoenix, AZ
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Frank McCune and the Aviation
Department.
Report
Sky Harbor International Airport (Ordinance S-52541) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an executive hangar lease agreement with Jackson Jet Center LLC (Jackson Jet) at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX).
Summary
Jackson Jet operates a full-service fixed base operator business at PHX and has
requested to lease a vacant executive hangar consisting of approximately 5,449
square feet of hangar and adjoining office space.
Contract Term
The lease term will be approximately three years and expire on or about December 31,
2027. The lease will include three one-year options to extend the term that may be
exercised at the sole discretion of the Aviation Director.
Financial Impact
Annual rent for the first year of the lease term is anticipated to be approximately
$45,727.87. Rent will be adjusted annually based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
Consumer Price Index or three percent, whichever is greater. Total revenue during the
term of the lease will be approximately $228,639, if all options to extend are exercised.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee,
approved this item on December 4, 2025, by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board approved this item on November 20, 2025, by a
vote of 6-0.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee approved this item on
December 17, 2025, by a vote of 4-0.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road, Phoenix, AZ
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Frank McCune and the Aviation
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Intergovernmental Agreements for Receiving Regional Funds in Support of the
Regional Transit Fare Collection System (Ordinance S-52532) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
Intergovernmental Agreements with Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation
Authority (RPTA) and Valley Metro Rail, Inc., for the receipt and use of regional transit
funds for the joint management of the regional transit fare collection system. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to receive all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Public Transit Department has partnered with Valley Metro/RPTA in a multi-year
effort to modernize the fare collection system for bus and light rail services across the
region. The fare collection system is a critical regional asset that supports transit
operations and ensures seamless service for the region's passengers across multiple
jurisdictions. The system, designed and implemented after City Council approval in
March 2020, is now operational and the original project tasks are being closed out.
Each agency holds contracts with vendors to support various elements of the fare
collection system, including equipment on transit vehicles, the software supporting the
system, and the website and mobile app riders now use to plan their trips and
purchase fares. This request is to allow the agencies to enter into agreements related
to the ongoing support and future enhancements to the system, and allow the City to
receive regional funding from Valley Metro/RPTA specifically for these efforts.
Contract Term
The term of these agreements will reflect the fare collection system contract, which
commenced on July 1, 2020, for a 13-year term with two optional three-year
extensions.
Financial Impact
Federal and regional public transportation funds are used to operate and support the
fare collection system. These agreements will allow the Public Transit Department to
be reimbursed (i.e., receive revenue) from the regional funds managed by Valley
Metro/RPTA. The estimated reimbursements for the remaining implementation project
is $890,000, with annual estimated reimbursements thereafter of approximately
$350,000 annually.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Public
Transit Department.
Report
Regional Transit Fare Collection System (Ordinance S-52532) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
Intergovernmental Agreements with Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation
Authority (RPTA) and Valley Metro Rail, Inc., for the receipt and use of regional transit
funds for the joint management of the regional transit fare collection system. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to receive all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Public Transit Department has partnered with Valley Metro/RPTA in a multi-year
effort to modernize the fare collection system for bus and light rail services across the
region. The fare collection system is a critical regional asset that supports transit
operations and ensures seamless service for the region's passengers across multiple
jurisdictions. The system, designed and implemented after City Council approval in
March 2020, is now operational and the original project tasks are being closed out.
Each agency holds contracts with vendors to support various elements of the fare
collection system, including equipment on transit vehicles, the software supporting the
system, and the website and mobile app riders now use to plan their trips and
purchase fares. This request is to allow the agencies to enter into agreements related
to the ongoing support and future enhancements to the system, and allow the City to
receive regional funding from Valley Metro/RPTA specifically for these efforts.
Contract Term
The term of these agreements will reflect the fare collection system contract, which
commenced on July 1, 2020, for a 13-year term with two optional three-year
extensions.
Financial Impact
Federal and regional public transportation funds are used to operate and support the
fare collection system. These agreements will allow the Public Transit Department to
be reimbursed (i.e., receive revenue) from the regional funds managed by Valley
Metro/RPTA. The estimated reimbursements for the remaining implementation project
is $890,000, with annual estimated reimbursements thereafter of approximately
$350,000 annually.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Amber Williamson and the Public
Transit Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Asphalt and Striping Services, IFB 26-FMD-030 - Request for Award (Ordinance
S-52518) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with Ben's Asphalt, LLC, Cactus Transport II LLC dba Cactus Asphalt, and
Sunland Asphalt & Construction, LLC to provide asphalt and striping services for the
Public Works and Aviation departments, including services on ADA-related projects
subject to funding from the 2023 General Obligation Bond Project. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total
aggregate amount of the contracts will not exceed $7,355,000.
Summary
The Public Works and Aviation departments are responsible for the maintenance and
repair of asphalt paving and related services across City-owned properties and airport
facilities. These services include asphalt paving, crack filling, sealing, milling, saw
cutting, striping, and installing safety bollards, wheel stops, and handicap signage. The
contractors will perform these services to ensure paved surfaces, such as foundations,
driveways, walkways, runways, and taxiways are properly maintained and meet all
applicable code requirements. For the Public Works Department, this work supports
the safety and accessibility of City properties for the public and staff. For the Aviation
Department, it ensures the safe operation of aircraft and ground traffic at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, Goodyear Airport, and Deer Valley Airport. Continuing
these services is essential to uphold safety standards, maintain infrastructure integrity,
and support the operational needs of both departments.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was conducted in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Five bidders submitted a bid, one of which was
deemed non-responsive. Four bidders were deemed to be responsive to the posted
specifications, and responsible to provide the required services. Following an
evaluation based on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following
bidders:
Selected Bidders
Ben's Asphalt, LLC
Cactus Transport II LLC dba Cactus Asphalt
Sunland Asphalt & Construction, LLC
Other Bidder
Gonzalez Asphalt, Inc.
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about February 1, 2026, for a two-year term with three
one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The contracts will have a combined total aggregate value that will not exceed
$7,355,000. Funds are available in the Public Works and Aviation departments'
operating budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Frank McCune
and the Public Works and Aviation departments.
Report
S-52518) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with Ben's Asphalt, LLC, Cactus Transport II LLC dba Cactus Asphalt, and
Sunland Asphalt & Construction, LLC to provide asphalt and striping services for the
Public Works and Aviation departments, including services on ADA-related projects
subject to funding from the 2023 General Obligation Bond Project. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total
aggregate amount of the contracts will not exceed $7,355,000.
Summary
The Public Works and Aviation departments are responsible for the maintenance and
repair of asphalt paving and related services across City-owned properties and airport
facilities. These services include asphalt paving, crack filling, sealing, milling, saw
cutting, striping, and installing safety bollards, wheel stops, and handicap signage. The
contractors will perform these services to ensure paved surfaces, such as foundations,
driveways, walkways, runways, and taxiways are properly maintained and meet all
applicable code requirements. For the Public Works Department, this work supports
the safety and accessibility of City properties for the public and staff. For the Aviation
Department, it ensures the safe operation of aircraft and ground traffic at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, Goodyear Airport, and Deer Valley Airport. Continuing
these services is essential to uphold safety standards, maintain infrastructure integrity,
and support the operational needs of both departments.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was conducted in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Five bidders submitted a bid, one of which was
deemed non-responsive. Four bidders were deemed to be responsive to the posted
specifications, and responsible to provide the required services. Following an
evaluation based on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following
bidders:
Selected Bidders
Ben's Asphalt, LLC
Cactus Transport II LLC dba Cactus Asphalt
Sunland Asphalt & Construction, LLC
Other Bidder
Gonzalez Asphalt, Inc.
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about February 1, 2026, for a two-year term with three
one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The contracts will have a combined total aggregate value that will not exceed
$7,355,000. Funds are available in the Public Works and Aviation departments'
operating budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Frank McCune
and the Public Works and Aviation departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Galvanized Water Service Line Replacement (WIFA) - 2-Step Job Order
Contracting Services - JOC 243 (Ordinance S-52542) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate master agreements with the three contractors listed below to provide
Galvanized Water Service Line Replacement Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
(WIFA) 2-Step Job Order Contracting services for the Water Services Department.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $39 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
take all action as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and
construction agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to
the development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include,
but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors’ services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Galvanized Water Service Line Replacement services for substandard
water service line material with placement of new copper line on the City and customer
side; water meter service connections; furnishment and installation of water service
pipe and fittings from main to meter; water meter relocations; water line terminations;
repair of water services lines; restoration of existing landscaping and irrigation
systems; and other services as required to support successful completion of the work.
Additionally, the JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business
Enterprise program requirements.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a 2-step qualifications and price-based selection
process set forth in Section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In
accordance with A.R.S. Section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release
information on proposals received or the scoring results until an agreement is
awarded. Five firms submitted proposals and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Talis Construction Corporation
Rank 2: WaCo, LLC dba WaCo Contracting
Rank 3: Hydra Contracting, LLC
Additional Proposers
Rank 4: Kinkaid Civil Construction LLC
Rank 5: Cholla Civil Construction, LLC
Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $13 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $13
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute job
order agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $4 million each.
In no event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Ginger
Spencer, the City Engineer and the Water Services Department.
Report
Contracting Services - JOC 243 (Ordinance S-52542) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate master agreements with the three contractors listed below to provide
Galvanized Water Service Line Replacement Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
(WIFA) 2-Step Job Order Contracting services for the Water Services Department.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $39 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
take all action as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and
construction agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to
the development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include,
but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors’ services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Galvanized Water Service Line Replacement services for substandard
water service line material with placement of new copper line on the City and customer
side; water meter service connections; furnishment and installation of water service
pipe and fittings from main to meter; water meter relocations; water line terminations;
repair of water services lines; restoration of existing landscaping and irrigation
systems; and other services as required to support successful completion of the work.
Additionally, the JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business
Enterprise program requirements.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a 2-step qualifications and price-based selection
process set forth in Section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In
accordance with A.R.S. Section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release
information on proposals received or the scoring results until an agreement is
awarded. Five firms submitted proposals and are listed below.
Selected Firms
Rank 1: Talis Construction Corporation
Rank 2: WaCo, LLC dba WaCo Contracting
Rank 3: Hydra Contracting, LLC
Additional Proposers
Rank 4: Kinkaid Civil Construction LLC
Rank 5: Cholla Civil Construction, LLC
Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $13 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $13
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute job
order agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $4 million each.
In no event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Ginger
Spencer, the City Engineer and the Water Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request Authorization to Enter Into a Private Stormwater Pipe License with
Envision Dobbins, LLC (Ordinance S-52517) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
license agreement with Envision Dobbins, LLC for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of a private stormwater pipe to be placed in the City’s right-of-way.
Summary
Private development is responsible for providing on-site retention to meet the 100-year
2-hour storm event, per City Code Chapter 32C and the City of Phoenix Storm Water
Policies and Standards Manual. During the developer's on-site construction, it was
discovered that the water table is higher in this area of the City. As a result, the
designed private underground retention system could not function, and an alternate
design was necessary. The limited size of the development parcel to provide surface
retention basins, and the inability to enter into a private agreement with adjacent
parcels to establish a shared retention system, forced the developer to seek an off-site
alternative method to capture and discharge stormwater. The developer obtained
approval from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to privately discharge
stormwater into an ADOT-controlled stormwater basin. The developer requests to
install 990 linear feet of private pipe in the right-of-way to convey onsite stormwater
from the subject property to the South Mountain Freeway ADOT basin.
In conformance with City Code Section 31-40, the agreement will include a clause to
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Phoenix against all liability, loss, and damage
that results from the installation, maintenance, and repair of any private facilities
related to this agreement.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. Licensee will pay an annual fee based on the
linear footage.
Location
Generally, within the south half of Dobbins Road, located approximately 700 feet east
of 65th Avenue to the limits of the shared jurisdiction line between the City of Phoenix
and the ADOT (South Mountain Freeway).
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Street Transportation
Department.
Report
Envision Dobbins, LLC (Ordinance S-52517) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
license agreement with Envision Dobbins, LLC for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of a private stormwater pipe to be placed in the City’s right-of-way.
Summary
Private development is responsible for providing on-site retention to meet the 100-year
2-hour storm event, per City Code Chapter 32C and the City of Phoenix Storm Water
Policies and Standards Manual. During the developer's on-site construction, it was
discovered that the water table is higher in this area of the City. As a result, the
designed private underground retention system could not function, and an alternate
design was necessary. The limited size of the development parcel to provide surface
retention basins, and the inability to enter into a private agreement with adjacent
parcels to establish a shared retention system, forced the developer to seek an off-site
alternative method to capture and discharge stormwater. The developer obtained
approval from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to privately discharge
stormwater into an ADOT-controlled stormwater basin. The developer requests to
install 990 linear feet of private pipe in the right-of-way to convey onsite stormwater
from the subject property to the South Mountain Freeway ADOT basin.
In conformance with City Code Section 31-40, the agreement will include a clause to
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Phoenix against all liability, loss, and damage
that results from the installation, maintenance, and repair of any private facilities
related to this agreement.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. Licensee will pay an annual fee based on the
linear footage.
Location
Generally, within the south half of Dobbins Road, located approximately 700 feet east
of 65th Avenue to the limits of the shared jurisdiction line between the City of Phoenix
and the ADOT (South Mountain Freeway).
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Street Transportation
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Bridge Asset Management and Inspections On-Call Services for Calendar Years
2026-2030 (Ordinance S-52534) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate agreements with the two consultants listed below to provide Engineering
Services that include assessment, project management, inspection, and support
services for the Bridge Asset Management and Inspections On-Call Services for the
Street Transportation Department for Calendar Years 2026 to 2030. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the
Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all services will not exceed
$10 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
take all action as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and
construction agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to
the development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include,
but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
On-call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Bridge Asset Management
and Inspections Services that include, but are not limited to: inspection, assessment,
maintenance planning, and design services for both National Bridge Inventory (NBI)
and Non-NBI structures throughout the City on an as-needed basis.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:
Selected Firms
Rank 1: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Rank 2: Consor North America, Inc.
Additional Proposer
Rank 3: RS&H, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to five years, or up to $5 million, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the on-call consultants will not exceed $5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $10 million.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement
Program budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve
funding availability prior to issuance of any on-call task order of $100,000 or more.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Frank McCune and Amber
Williamson, the Street Transportation Department and the City Engineer.
Report
2026-2030 (Ordinance S-52534) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate agreements with the two consultants listed below to provide Engineering
Services that include assessment, project management, inspection, and support
services for the Bridge Asset Management and Inspections On-Call Services for the
Street Transportation Department for Calendar Years 2026 to 2030. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the
Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all services will not exceed
$10 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
take all action as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and
construction agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to
the development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include,
but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
On-call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Bridge Asset Management
and Inspections Services that include, but are not limited to: inspection, assessment,
maintenance planning, and design services for both National Bridge Inventory (NBI)
and Non-NBI structures throughout the City on an as-needed basis.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:
Selected Firms
Rank 1: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Rank 2: Consor North America, Inc.
Additional Proposer
Rank 3: RS&H, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to five years, or up to $5 million, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the on-call consultants will not exceed $5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $10 million.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement
Program budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve
funding availability prior to issuance of any on-call task order of $100,000 or more.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Frank McCune and Amber
Williamson, the Street Transportation Department and the City Engineer.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Future Permits and Compliance - RFA 2425-WPC-656 - Amendment (Ordinance S
-52515) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute an
amendment to Contract 162334 with NJB Soft, LLC to provide additional funds to
allow the Planning and Development Department to utilize the contract. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditure will not exceed $52,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the Planning and Development Department with software
designed for environmental permit compliance management to support permit lifecycle
management activities, reduce internal labor, and increase efficiencies for scheduling
tasks, analyzing data, and monitoring required compliance reporting and permit
renewals.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, with the base year ending on December 31,
2029 with two one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $52,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,633,216. Funds are available in the Planning and
Development Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved Contract 162334 (Ordinance S-51528) on
December 18, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
-52515) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute an
amendment to Contract 162334 with NJB Soft, LLC to provide additional funds to
allow the Planning and Development Department to utilize the contract. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditure will not exceed $52,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the Planning and Development Department with software
designed for environmental permit compliance management to support permit lifecycle
management activities, reduce internal labor, and increase efficiencies for scheduling
tasks, analyzing data, and monitoring required compliance reporting and permit
renewals.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, with the base year ending on December 31,
2029 with two one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $52,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,633,216. Funds are available in the Planning and
Development Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved Contract 162334 (Ordinance S-51528) on
December 18, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona Department of Transportation to
Relocate City of Phoenix Water and Sewer Mains (Ordinance S-52519) - Districts
4&5
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) for reimbursement of water relocation work in advance of the US 60 - 35th
Avenue / Indian School Road Traffic Interchange improvements. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. The City will be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $17.1
million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
take all action as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and
construction agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to
the development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include,
but are not limited to: electrical; water; sewer; natural gas; telecommunications; cable
television; railroads; and other modes of transportation.
Also request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-
20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.
Summary
ADOT's US 60 - 35th Avenue / Indian School Road Project will replace the existing
traffic interchange allowing better flow of traffic. The Water Services Department owns
water and wastewater infrastructure in the project area. The City-owned facilities have
prior rights and must be relocated by ADOT at their cost. A majority of the water and
wastewater relocation work will be completed with ADOT's project construction;
however, several large diameter water mains require relocation prior to ADOT's
construction due to water system coordination and impacts. The City will hire a Job
Order Contractor to complete the pre-project water relocations and a consultant to
provide inspection to affected facilities. ADOT will reimburse the City for the
construction and inspection costs in an amount not to exceed $17.1 million.
Contract Term
The terms and conditions of this agreement shall remain in effect until the work is
complete and final repayment is received.
Financial Impact
The City will be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $17.1 million.
Location
Grand Avenue at Indian School Road and 35th Avenue
Council Districts: 4 and 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Relocate City of Phoenix Water and Sewer Mains (Ordinance S-52519) - Districts
4&5
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) for reimbursement of water relocation work in advance of the US 60 - 35th
Avenue / Indian School Road Traffic Interchange improvements. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. The City will be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $17.1
million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
take all action as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and
construction agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to
the development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include,
but are not limited to: electrical; water; sewer; natural gas; telecommunications; cable
television; railroads; and other modes of transportation.
Also request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-
20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.
Summary
ADOT's US 60 - 35th Avenue / Indian School Road Project will replace the existing
traffic interchange allowing better flow of traffic. The Water Services Department owns
water and wastewater infrastructure in the project area. The City-owned facilities have
prior rights and must be relocated by ADOT at their cost. A majority of the water and
wastewater relocation work will be completed with ADOT's project construction;
however, several large diameter water mains require relocation prior to ADOT's
construction due to water system coordination and impacts. The City will hire a Job
Order Contractor to complete the pre-project water relocations and a consultant to
provide inspection to affected facilities. ADOT will reimburse the City for the
construction and inspection costs in an amount not to exceed $17.1 million.
Contract Term
The terms and conditions of this agreement shall remain in effect until the work is
complete and final repayment is received.
Financial Impact
The City will be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $17.1 million.
Location
Grand Avenue at Indian School Road and 35th Avenue
Council Districts: 4 and 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality In-Person Onsite Operator
Certification Program Training Services Contract RFP GGS-26-0048- Request for
Award (Ordinance S-52521) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with Arizona Water & Wastewater Training LLC and Operational Technical
Services, LLC to provide Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
certification in-person onsite 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 contracts will not exceed $900,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the Water Services Department (WSD) with in-person onsite
training services to prepare WSD employees for the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Operator Certification Program Examination. This
certification is required for some WSD employee job classifications to ensure
compliance with water industry requirements and city, state, and federal safety
regulations.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Three vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria
with a maximum possible point total of 1000:
· Experience and Capability (0-405 points)
· Method of Approach (0-375 points)
· Cost (0-220 points)
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendors:
· Arizona Water & Wastewater Training LLC (669.96 points) - Groups 1-4 (Grade
Levels Combined 1-2, Combined 3-4), Group 5, and Course Development
Consulting
· Operational Technical Services, LLC (581.06 points) - Groups 1-5 and Course
Development Consulting
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about December 31, 2025, for a two-year term with three
one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $900,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Certification Program Training Services Contract RFP GGS-26-0048- Request for
Award (Ordinance S-52521) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with Arizona Water & Wastewater Training LLC and Operational Technical
Services, LLC to provide Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
certification in-person onsite 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 contracts will not exceed $900,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the Water Services Department (WSD) with in-person onsite
training services to prepare WSD employees for the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Operator Certification Program Examination. This
certification is required for some WSD employee job classifications to ensure
compliance with water industry requirements and city, state, and federal safety
regulations.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Three vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria
with a maximum possible point total of 1000:
· Experience and Capability (0-405 points)
· Method of Approach (0-375 points)
· Cost (0-220 points)
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendors:
· Arizona Water & Wastewater Training LLC (669.96 points) - Groups 1-4 (Grade
Levels Combined 1-2, Combined 3-4), Group 5, and Course Development
Consulting
· Operational Technical Services, LLC (581.06 points) - Groups 1-5 and Course
Development Consulting
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about December 31, 2025, for a two-year term with three
one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $900,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Manhole Covers, Rings, Meter Boxes and Related Accessories - Amendment
(Ordinance S-52524) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow
additional expenditures under Agreement 155474 with Ferguson US Holdings, Inc., for
the purchase of manhole covers, rings, meter boxes, and related accessories. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $814,000.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to purchase new manhole covers, rings, and meter
boxes and related accessories as well as for the replacement of stock inventory. These
items are essential for both new infrastructure projects and the repair of existing
infrastructure at multiple locations throughout the City. The additional funds allow the
department to purchase items as needed.
Contract Term
The agreement's term remains unchanged, ending on December 14, 2028.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization expenditure was for a not-to-exceed $2,136,415 for these
items. This amendment will increase the authorization of the agreement by an
additional $814,000 for a new not-to-exceed total of $2,950,415.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Manhole Covers, Rings, Meter Boxes and Related Accessories (Ordinance S-
48036) on October 27, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
(Ordinance S-52524) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow
additional expenditures under Agreement 155474 with Ferguson US Holdings, Inc., for
the purchase of manhole covers, rings, meter boxes, and related accessories. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $814,000.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to purchase new manhole covers, rings, and meter
boxes and related accessories as well as for the replacement of stock inventory. These
items are essential for both new infrastructure projects and the repair of existing
infrastructure at multiple locations throughout the City. The additional funds allow the
department to purchase items as needed.
Contract Term
The agreement's term remains unchanged, ending on December 14, 2028.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization expenditure was for a not-to-exceed $2,136,415 for these
items. This amendment will increase the authorization of the agreement by an
additional $814,000 for a new not-to-exceed total of $2,950,415.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Manhole Covers, Rings, Meter Boxes and Related Accessories (Ordinance S-
48036) on October 27, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals - IFB-2021-WPP-308 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-52527) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow
additional expenditures under agreements 153959, 153960, 153958, 153957, 153943,
153956, and 153938 with PVS DS Inc., Chemrite, Inc., Dubois Chemicals, Inc., Donau
Carbon US, LLC, Thatcher Company of Arizona, Inc., Thatcher Company of Arizona,
Inc., and Hill Brothers Chemical Company to provide additional funding to the
agreements. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $3,760,000.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to request additional funds for the purchase of
water and wastewater treatment chemicals on an as-needed basis until the end of the
contract in March 2026. Additional funds are needed due to the addition of the Lake
Pleasant Water Treatment Facility.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on March 31, 2026.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for water and wastewater treatment chemicals was for an
expenditure not-to-exceed $25,500,000. The second authorization for water and
wastewater treatment chemicals was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $14,500,000.
This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $3,760,000, for new
total not-to-exceed $43,760,000.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Water and wastewater treatment and chemicals (Ordinance S-47340) on March 3,
2021.
· Water and wastewater treatment and chemicals (Ordinance S-51393) on November
13, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
(Ordinance S-52527) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow
additional expenditures under agreements 153959, 153960, 153958, 153957, 153943,
153956, and 153938 with PVS DS Inc., Chemrite, Inc., Dubois Chemicals, Inc., Donau
Carbon US, LLC, Thatcher Company of Arizona, Inc., Thatcher Company of Arizona,
Inc., and Hill Brothers Chemical Company to provide additional funding to the
agreements. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $3,760,000.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to request additional funds for the purchase of
water and wastewater treatment chemicals on an as-needed basis until the end of the
contract in March 2026. Additional funds are needed due to the addition of the Lake
Pleasant Water Treatment Facility.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on March 31, 2026.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for water and wastewater treatment chemicals was for an
expenditure not-to-exceed $25,500,000. The second authorization for water and
wastewater treatment chemicals was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $14,500,000.
This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $3,760,000, for new
total not-to-exceed $43,760,000.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Water and wastewater treatment and chemicals (Ordinance S-47340) on March 3,
2021.
· Water and wastewater treatment and chemicals (Ordinance S-51393) on November
13, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Work and Asset Management Migration Consulting Services - RFQu-2021-WAD-
446 - Letter of Agreement (Ordinance S-52528) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
Letter of Agreement to reinstate the terms and conditions with TMG Utility Advisory
Services, Inc. (156937). This contract will continue to provide Work and Asset
Management consulting and project management services for the Water Services
Department. Request to continue using funds previously approved via Ordinances S-
48831. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item.
Summary
The purpose of the Letter of Agreement is to continue to provide migration and
consulting services to support the Water Services Department (WSD) in transitioning
from its current ITS Oracle Work and Asset Management (WAM) 1.9X solution to an
Oracle WAM 2.X solution. WSD currently uses Oracle WAM version 1.9X to document
work and asset management activities; however, this version has reached end-of-life
and is no longer supported by Oracle.
The services include project oversight and management, change management,
assessments, recommendations, migrations and post-implementation support.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
The term of the Letter of Agreement will begin on or about January 7, 2026, and expire
on June 30, 2026, with a one-year option to extend.
Financial Impact
There is no requested change to the existing spending authorization for this contract
as part of the Letter of Agreement.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved: WAM Migration Consulting Services Contract - Request for
Award 156937 (Ordinance S-48831) on July 1, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
446 - Letter of Agreement (Ordinance S-52528) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
Letter of Agreement to reinstate the terms and conditions with TMG Utility Advisory
Services, Inc. (156937). This contract will continue to provide Work and Asset
Management consulting and project management services for the Water Services
Department. Request to continue using funds previously approved via Ordinances S-
48831. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item.
Summary
The purpose of the Letter of Agreement is to continue to provide migration and
consulting services to support the Water Services Department (WSD) in transitioning
from its current ITS Oracle Work and Asset Management (WAM) 1.9X solution to an
Oracle WAM 2.X solution. WSD currently uses Oracle WAM version 1.9X to document
work and asset management activities; however, this version has reached end-of-life
and is no longer supported by Oracle.
The services include project oversight and management, change management,
assessments, recommendations, migrations and post-implementation support.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
The term of the Letter of Agreement will begin on or about January 7, 2026, and expire
on June 30, 2026, with a one-year option to extend.
Financial Impact
There is no requested change to the existing spending authorization for this contract
as part of the Letter of Agreement.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved: WAM Migration Consulting Services Contract - Request for
Award 156937 (Ordinance S-48831) on July 1, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Hydrochloric (Muriatic) and Citric Acid Contract - IFB-26-0146 Request for Award
(Ordinance S-52529) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
contract with Brenntag Pacific, Inc. to provide hydrochloric (muriatic) and citric acid 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
$1,550,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the Water Services Department with the ability to purchase
hydrochloric (muriatic) and citric acid. These products are among the many products
that the City of Phoenix requires to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water to its
residents.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two 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 vendor:
Selected Bidder
Brenntag Pacific, Inc.: $309,590 (annually)
Additional Bidder
Hasa, Inc.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about January 1, 2026, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,550,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating Budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
(Ordinance S-52529) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
contract with Brenntag Pacific, Inc. to provide hydrochloric (muriatic) and citric acid 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
$1,550,000.
Summary
This contract will provide the Water Services Department with the ability to purchase
hydrochloric (muriatic) and citric acid. These products are among the many products
that the City of Phoenix requires to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water to its
residents.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two 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 vendor:
Selected Bidder
Brenntag Pacific, Inc.: $309,590 (annually)
Additional Bidder
Hasa, Inc.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about January 1, 2026, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,550,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating Budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 250041 - 16801 N. 21st Avenue (Resolution
22362) - District 3
Abandonment: 250041
Project: 18-1329
Applicant: James A. Brucci/Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon a 20' by 623.10' drainage easement located on a property at
16801 N. 21st Avenue
Date of Decision: December 15, 2025
Location
Generally located at 16801 N. 21st Avenue
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64(e), the City acknowledges the public
benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax rolls and
by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City, maintenance
expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, and also by replatting of the area with
alternate roadways and new development, to be sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.
No consideration fee was required as part of this submittal, although filing fees were
paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
22362) - District 3
Abandonment: 250041
Project: 18-1329
Applicant: James A. Brucci/Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon a 20' by 623.10' drainage easement located on a property at
16801 N. 21st Avenue
Date of Decision: December 15, 2025
Location
Generally located at 16801 N. 21st Avenue
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64(e), the City acknowledges the public
benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax rolls and
by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City, maintenance
expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, and also by replatting of the area with
alternate roadways and new development, to be sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.
No consideration fee was required as part of this submittal, although filing fees were
paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 240037 - Alley right-of-way(ROW) located
between East Calle Tuberia and North 54th Street (Resolution 22358) - District 6
Abandonment: 240037
Project: 05-1208
Applicant: Chad R. Foster and Natalie Foster
Request: To abandon an alley located between East Calle Tuberia and North 54th
Street.
Date of Decision/Hearing: The Abandonment Hearing Officer approved this request
subject to stipulations on September 12, 2024
Location
Generally located at the alley right-of-way (ROW), located between East Calle Tuberia
and North 54th Street.
Council District: 6
Financial Impact
A fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of $908.40.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
between East Calle Tuberia and North 54th Street (Resolution 22358) - District 6
Abandonment: 240037
Project: 05-1208
Applicant: Chad R. Foster and Natalie Foster
Request: To abandon an alley located between East Calle Tuberia and North 54th
Street.
Date of Decision/Hearing: The Abandonment Hearing Officer approved this request
subject to stipulations on September 12, 2024
Location
Generally located at the alley right-of-way (ROW), located between East Calle Tuberia
and North 54th Street.
Council District: 6
Financial Impact
A fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of $908.40.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 220044 - Southeast Corner of 1st Avenue
and Madison Street (Resolution 22359) - District 7
Abandonment: 220044
Project: 00-1527
Applicant: Noel Griemsmann
Request: To abandon the entirety of the east/west alleyway bifurcating Block 63 of the
Original Townsite of Phoenix (Book 2, Page 51) and approximately 14-feet of the
east/west depth of Central Avenue along Lot 1; and approximately 25-feet of the
east/west depth of Central Avenue along Lot 2 and the triangular area from the back of
the 1st Avenue underpass fence line along the western side of Lot 11 (Book 2, Page
51) and Lot 1 (Book 542, Page 13) approximately 14-feet of the north/south depth of
Madison Street abutting Lots 1,3, and 5 (Book 2, Page 51) of the Maricopa County
Recorder.
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2022
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of 1st Avenue and Madison Street
Council District: 7
Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64(e), the City acknowledges the public
benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax rolls and
by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City, maintenance
expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, and also by the replatting of the area with
alternate roadways and new development, to be sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.
A fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of $179,400.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
and Madison Street (Resolution 22359) - District 7
Abandonment: 220044
Project: 00-1527
Applicant: Noel Griemsmann
Request: To abandon the entirety of the east/west alleyway bifurcating Block 63 of the
Original Townsite of Phoenix (Book 2, Page 51) and approximately 14-feet of the
east/west depth of Central Avenue along Lot 1; and approximately 25-feet of the
east/west depth of Central Avenue along Lot 2 and the triangular area from the back of
the 1st Avenue underpass fence line along the western side of Lot 11 (Book 2, Page
51) and Lot 1 (Book 542, Page 13) approximately 14-feet of the north/south depth of
Madison Street abutting Lots 1,3, and 5 (Book 2, Page 51) of the Maricopa County
Recorder.
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2022
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of 1st Avenue and Madison Street
Council District: 7
Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64(e), the City acknowledges the public
benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax rolls and
by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City, maintenance
expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, and also by the replatting of the area with
alternate roadways and new development, to be sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.
A fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of $179,400.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Supplementary Zoning Map 1299 (Ordinance G-7470) - District 4
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1299. This
amendment reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions
previously approved by City Council with Z-77-06-4 and the entitlements are fully
vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located approximately 150 feet north of the northwest corner of
3rd Street and Catalina Drive.
Application No.: Z-77-06-4
Zoning: C-2 H-R TOD-1
Owner: Navajo Nation of Indians
Acreage: 2.28
Location
Located approximately 150 feet north of the northwest corner of 3rd Street and
Catalina Drive
Address: 3008 N. 3rd Street
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Lori Bays Date: January 5, 2026
Assistant City Manager
From: Joshua BednareQ.(2,
Planning and De-���ment Director
Subject: CORRECTION TO ITEM 89 ON THE JANUARY 7, 2026, FORMAL AGENDA -
AMEND CITY CODE - OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1299
(ORDINANCE G-7470)
This correction memo is to update the draft ordinance to reflect the existing TOD-1
zoning overlay that should remain in place.
Approved:
Lori Bays
Assistant City
Attachment A:
Corrected Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1299
OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP NO. 1299 Sheet 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Passed by the Council of the City of Phoenix, Arizona this 7th day of January 2026.
r L
'
:i I TOD-1*
:-r- --:�H�---�1-:
I
I
i '
L___ - _J
+-. -----]----�.
--··-----'-··
N
00 f§l(
l!J �--
I CATALINA DR I
co rn: r
'l --- � I J II -11·1 - I - -f"T
Z-77-06-4
ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS: *
Drawn by: KS AREA INVOLVED BOUNDED THUS: • • • • •
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1299.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1299, which
accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
DI:arm:LF25-2628:01-07-2026
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1299. This
amendment reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions
previously approved by City Council with Z-77-06-4 and the entitlements are fully
vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located approximately 150 feet north of the northwest corner of
3rd Street and Catalina Drive.
Application No.: Z-77-06-4
Zoning: C-2 H-R TOD-1
Owner: Navajo Nation of Indians
Acreage: 2.28
Location
Located approximately 150 feet north of the northwest corner of 3rd Street and
Catalina Drive
Address: 3008 N. 3rd Street
Council District: 4
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Lori Bays Date: January 5, 2026
Assistant City Manager
From: Joshua BednareQ.(2,
Planning and De-���ment Director
Subject: CORRECTION TO ITEM 89 ON THE JANUARY 7, 2026, FORMAL AGENDA -
AMEND CITY CODE - OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1299
(ORDINANCE G-7470)
This correction memo is to update the draft ordinance to reflect the existing TOD-1
zoning overlay that should remain in place.
Approved:
Lori Bays
Assistant City
Attachment A:
Corrected Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1299
OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP NO. 1299 Sheet 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Passed by the Council of the City of Phoenix, Arizona this 7th day of January 2026.
r L
'
:i I TOD-1*
:-r- --:�H�---�1-:
I
I
i '
L___ - _J
+-. -----]----�.
--··-----'-··
N
00 f§l(
l!J �--
I CATALINA DR I
co rn: r
'l --- � I J II -11·1 - I - -f"T
Z-77-06-4
ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS: *
Drawn by: KS AREA INVOLVED BOUNDED THUS: • • • • •
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1299.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1299, which
accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
DI:arm:LF25-2628:01-07-2026
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1300 (Ordinance G-
7469) - District 6
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1300. This
amendment reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions
previously approved by City Council with a portion of Z-SP-3-66 and the
entitlements are fully vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located at the southwest corner of 36th Street and Earll Drive.
Application No.: Z-SP-3-66
Zoning: R-4 SP
Owner: Kivel Manor
Acreage: 3.95
Location
Located at the southwest corner of 36th Street and Earll Drive.
Address: 3040 N. 36th Street and 3501 E. Earll Drive
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1300.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1300, which
accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
DI:arm:LF25-2627:01-07-2026
Report
7469) - District 6
Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1300. This
amendment reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions
previously approved by City Council with a portion of Z-SP-3-66 and the
entitlements are fully vested.
Summary
To rezone a parcel located at the southwest corner of 36th Street and Earll Drive.
Application No.: Z-SP-3-66
Zoning: R-4 SP
Owner: Kivel Manor
Acreage: 3.95
Location
Located at the southwest corner of 36th Street and Earll Drive.
Address: 3040 N. 36th Street and 3501 E. Earll Drive
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1300.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1300, which
accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
DI:arm:LF25-2627:01-07-2026
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of November 19, 2025,
Planning Hearing Officer Action - PHO-1-25--Z-72-97-6 - Approximately 100 Feet
East of the Southeast Corner of 42nd Street and Hazelwood Street - District 6
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025. This
ratification requires formal action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-72-97-6
Existing Zoning: R1-6 PRD
Acreage: 1.15
Owner: Shane O'Neal, Jennings Revocable Trust/Andrelite Family Trust/Oneal Family
Trust
Applicant/Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan date
stamped June 24, 1997, and allowed density.
2. Technical corrections for Stipulations 4, 5, and 6.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this request on
November 4, 2025 and recommended approval by a vote of 18-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a modification
and an additional stipulation.
Location
Approximately 100 feet east of the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Hazelwood
Street
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 4203 E. Hazelwood Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Stipulations – PHO-1-25--Z-72-97-6
Location: Approximately 100 feet east of the southeast corner of 42nd
Street and Hazelwood Street
STIPULATIONS:
1. That The total number of new units SHALL BE allowed by the rezoning be
limited to FOURTEEN twelve, excluding the existing residential structure
and that THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL
CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER
19, 2025, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
development be in general conformance to the site plan dated June 24,
1997.
2. That The applicant SHALL either limit lots B5 and B6 to single-story units
or provide evidence that the adjacent property owner to the east of these
lots is not opposed to two-story development.
3. That Access onto Hazelwood Street, excepting that currently provided the
existing residential structure, SHALL be limited to ingress/egress only.
4. Right-of-way dedications and street alignments for local streets within the
subdivision will be determined by PLANNING AND Development Services
Department at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review.
5. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the STREETS
AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT City. All improvements shall
comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
6. No trees within the Hazelwood right-of-way shall be removed to effectuate
either ingress or egress to the property.
7. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Report
Planning Hearing Officer Action - PHO-1-25--Z-72-97-6 - Approximately 100 Feet
East of the Southeast Corner of 42nd Street and Hazelwood Street - District 6
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025. This
ratification requires formal action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-72-97-6
Existing Zoning: R1-6 PRD
Acreage: 1.15
Owner: Shane O'Neal, Jennings Revocable Trust/Andrelite Family Trust/Oneal Family
Trust
Applicant/Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan date
stamped June 24, 1997, and allowed density.
2. Technical corrections for Stipulations 4, 5, and 6.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this request on
November 4, 2025 and recommended approval by a vote of 18-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a modification
and an additional stipulation.
Location
Approximately 100 feet east of the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Hazelwood
Street
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 4203 E. Hazelwood Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Stipulations – PHO-1-25--Z-72-97-6
Location: Approximately 100 feet east of the southeast corner of 42nd
Street and Hazelwood Street
STIPULATIONS:
1. That The total number of new units SHALL BE allowed by the rezoning be
limited to FOURTEEN twelve, excluding the existing residential structure
and that THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL
CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER
19, 2025, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
development be in general conformance to the site plan dated June 24,
1997.
2. That The applicant SHALL either limit lots B5 and B6 to single-story units
or provide evidence that the adjacent property owner to the east of these
lots is not opposed to two-story development.
3. That Access onto Hazelwood Street, excepting that currently provided the
existing residential structure, SHALL be limited to ingress/egress only.
4. Right-of-way dedications and street alignments for local streets within the
subdivision will be determined by PLANNING AND Development Services
Department at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review.
5. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the STREETS
AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT City. All improvements shall
comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
6. No trees within the Hazelwood right-of-way shall be removed to effectuate
either ingress or egress to the property.
7. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-25--Z-SP-
9-22-7 - Southwest Corner of 35th Avenue and Broadway Road (Ordinance G-
7471) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-SP-9-22-7
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 5.43
Owner: Zachary Pebler, Prestige Partners, LLC.
Applicant: Daniel Chambers, QuikTrip Corporation
Representative: Robert Hannen, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan date
stamped November 29, 2022.
2. Request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to the elevations
date stamped October 26, 2022.
3. Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding fencing.
4. Request to delete Stipulation 16 regarding monument signs.
5. Request to delete Stipulation 17 regarding illuminated signs.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this request on November
17, 2025, and recommended approval with a modification by a vote of 11-0.
PHO Action: On November 19, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case under
advisement. On December 11, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out
from under advisement and recommended approval with modifications.
Location
Southwest corner of 35th Avenue and Broadway Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 4402 S. 35th Avenue
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO REZONING APPLICATION Z-SP-9-22-7
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-7072.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the site located at the
Southwest corner of 35th Avenue and Broadway Road in a portion of Section 27,
Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit A and
depicted in Exhibit B, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 November 29, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped DECEMBER 4, 2025 October 26, 2022, WITH SPECIFIC
REGARD TO THE ILLUMINAED SIGNS FACING AWAY FROM
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum 25-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the
western portion of the site and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper,
evergreen trees, planted 20-feet on-center or in equivalent groupings,
providing a solid minimum 30-foot vertical screen at maturity, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
4. A minimum 6-foot-tall wrought-iron fence, solid wall or combination thereof,
shall be provided along the western property line between the existing alley
and Building B, as depicted in the site plan date stamped SEPTEMBER 24,
2025 November 29, 2022, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas for employees and customers shall
be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area
and achieve 25% shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and
Development Department.
6. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and
drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. A minimum of two 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.
8. The landscape strips located between the detached sidewalk and back of
curb along 35th Avenue and Broadway Road shall be planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted minimum 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, providing a minimum of 75% shade at maturity.
b. Minimum 5-gallon shrubs providing 75% live cover at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
9. The developer shall replace the existing rolled curb with vertical curb along
Tamarisk Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. The developer shall dedicate 10 feet for the east side of the alley, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. 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.
12. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology 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
Archeologist prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or
grading approval.
13. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from
Phase I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.
14. 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.
15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included
in the rezoning application file for record.
16. No monument or ground signs shall be permitted on the site.
17. No illuminated signs are allowed on Building B, as depicted on the site plan
date stamped November 29, 2022.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-7072, this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-7072 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site
until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
________________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By: _________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (3 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-25--Z-SP-9-22-7
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS,
ACCORDING TO BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 25 FEET THEREOF, AND;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 7,
2006 AS 2006-1472979, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE WEST 8 FEET OF THE EAST 40 FEET OF THE SOUTH 45 FEET OF THE NORTH
180 FEET OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 38;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF LOT 11, LYING WITHIN 55 FEET OF THE LINE,
DESIGNATED HEREIN AS LINE "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH,
RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, BEING
IDENTICAL WITH THE INTERSECTION OF THE MONUMENT LINES OF
BROADWAY ROAD AND 35TH AVENUE;
THENCE SOUTH 01° 45' 21" WEST (BASED ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF SOUTH
00° 10' 28" EAST FOR THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 27) A DISTANCE OF 624.34
FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE
EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4850.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 06° 27' 35" A DISTANCE OF 546.80 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THE
LINE DESCRIBED HEREIN;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF SAID LOT 11 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 25 FEET
OF SAID LOT 11 AND THE LINE, DESCRIBED HEREIN AS LINE "B", WHICH IS
PARALLEL AND CONCENTRIC WITH AND 55 FEET WESTERLY OF SAID LINE "A";
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY TO A POINT IN SAID LINE "B" WHICH IS 15 FEET
NORTHERLY OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AS MEASURED ALONG SAID LINE
"B";
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE "B" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE WHOLE HEREIN DESCRIBED LYING WITHIN THE
EAST 32 FEET OF SAID LOT 11, AND;
EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE WHOLE HEREIN DESCRIBED LYING WITH THE
SOUTH 25 FEET OF SAID LOT 11, AND;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED
MAY 1, 2014 AS 20140285396 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PART OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 38, LOCATED WITHIN THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 27 FROM WHICH THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27
BEARS SOUTH 89° 51' 53" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,624.52 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00° 08' 07" EAST A DISTANCE OF 40,00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 00° 09' 33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.52 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 43° 32' 08" WEST A DISTANCE OF 35.75 FEET TO A POINT IN A
NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY THE RADIUS POINT
OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 03° 12' 18" EAST A DISTANCE OF 11,529.16 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00° 39' 34", A DISTANCE OF 132.71 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 86° 08' 08" WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89° 51' 53" EAST A DISTANCE OF 171.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING,
AND;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED
MAY 1, 2014 AS 20140285397 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE SOUTH 7.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 40.00 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
EAST HALF OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 38, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
TOGETHER WITH A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST
HALF OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS AS RECORDED IN BOOK 11 OF
MAPS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27, FROM WHICH
THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27 BEARS SOUTH 89° 51* 53"
WEST (BASIS OF BEARINGS), A DISTANCE OF 2624.47 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 27, SOUTH 89° 51' 53" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 328.06 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 11;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, AND ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 11, SOUTH 00° 08' 28" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 40.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BROADWAY ROAD AND
THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00° 08' 28" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 595.34 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMARISK
AVENUE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, AND ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE, SOUTH 89° 51' 59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 24.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE PARK UNIT FIVE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 89 OF
MAPS, PAGE 6, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, AND ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF SAID INDEPENDENCE PARK UNIT FIVE, NORTH 00° 08' 12" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 595.34 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BROADWAY
ROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 89° 51' 53" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 24.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Report
9-22-7 - Southwest Corner of 35th Avenue and Broadway Road (Ordinance G-
7471) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-SP-9-22-7
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 5.43
Owner: Zachary Pebler, Prestige Partners, LLC.
Applicant: Daniel Chambers, QuikTrip Corporation
Representative: Robert Hannen, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan date
stamped November 29, 2022.
2. Request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to the elevations
date stamped October 26, 2022.
3. Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding fencing.
4. Request to delete Stipulation 16 regarding monument signs.
5. Request to delete Stipulation 17 regarding illuminated signs.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this request on November
17, 2025, and recommended approval with a modification by a vote of 11-0.
PHO Action: On November 19, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case under
advisement. On December 11, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out
from under advisement and recommended approval with modifications.
Location
Southwest corner of 35th Avenue and Broadway Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 4402 S. 35th Avenue
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO REZONING APPLICATION Z-SP-9-22-7
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-7072.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the site located at the
Southwest corner of 35th Avenue and Broadway Road in a portion of Section 27,
Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit A and
depicted in Exhibit B, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 November 29, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped DECEMBER 4, 2025 October 26, 2022, WITH SPECIFIC
REGARD TO THE ILLUMINAED SIGNS FACING AWAY FROM
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. A minimum 25-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the
western portion of the site and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper,
evergreen trees, planted 20-feet on-center or in equivalent groupings,
providing a solid minimum 30-foot vertical screen at maturity, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
4. A minimum 6-foot-tall wrought-iron fence, solid wall or combination thereof,
shall be provided along the western property line between the existing alley
and Building B, as depicted in the site plan date stamped SEPTEMBER 24,
2025 November 29, 2022, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. All uncovered surface parking lot areas for employees and customers shall
be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area
and achieve 25% shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and
Development Department.
6. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and
drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. A minimum of two 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.
8. The landscape strips located between the detached sidewalk and back of
curb along 35th Avenue and Broadway Road shall be planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted minimum 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, providing a minimum of 75% shade at maturity.
b. Minimum 5-gallon shrubs providing 75% live cover at maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
9. The developer shall replace the existing rolled curb with vertical curb along
Tamarisk Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. The developer shall dedicate 10 feet for the east side of the alley, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. 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.
12. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology 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
Archeologist prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or
grading approval.
13. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from
Phase I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.
14. 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.
15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included
in the rezoning application file for record.
16. No monument or ground signs shall be permitted on the site.
17. No illuminated signs are allowed on Building B, as depicted on the site plan
date stamped November 29, 2022.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-7072, this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-7072 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site
until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
________________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By: _________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (3 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-25--Z-SP-9-22-7
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS,
ACCORDING TO BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 25 FEET THEREOF, AND;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 7,
2006 AS 2006-1472979, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE WEST 8 FEET OF THE EAST 40 FEET OF THE SOUTH 45 FEET OF THE NORTH
180 FEET OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 38;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF LOT 11, LYING WITHIN 55 FEET OF THE LINE,
DESIGNATED HEREIN AS LINE "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH,
RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, BEING
IDENTICAL WITH THE INTERSECTION OF THE MONUMENT LINES OF
BROADWAY ROAD AND 35TH AVENUE;
THENCE SOUTH 01° 45' 21" WEST (BASED ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF SOUTH
00° 10' 28" EAST FOR THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 27) A DISTANCE OF 624.34
FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE
EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4850.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 06° 27' 35" A DISTANCE OF 546.80 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THE
LINE DESCRIBED HEREIN;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF SAID LOT 11 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 25 FEET
OF SAID LOT 11 AND THE LINE, DESCRIBED HEREIN AS LINE "B", WHICH IS
PARALLEL AND CONCENTRIC WITH AND 55 FEET WESTERLY OF SAID LINE "A";
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY TO A POINT IN SAID LINE "B" WHICH IS 15 FEET
NORTHERLY OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AS MEASURED ALONG SAID LINE
"B";
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE "B" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE WHOLE HEREIN DESCRIBED LYING WITHIN THE
EAST 32 FEET OF SAID LOT 11, AND;
EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE WHOLE HEREIN DESCRIBED LYING WITH THE
SOUTH 25 FEET OF SAID LOT 11, AND;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED
MAY 1, 2014 AS 20140285396 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PART OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 38, LOCATED WITHIN THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 27 FROM WHICH THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27
BEARS SOUTH 89° 51' 53" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,624.52 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00° 08' 07" EAST A DISTANCE OF 40,00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 00° 09' 33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.52 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 43° 32' 08" WEST A DISTANCE OF 35.75 FEET TO A POINT IN A
NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY THE RADIUS POINT
OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 03° 12' 18" EAST A DISTANCE OF 11,529.16 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00° 39' 34", A DISTANCE OF 132.71 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 86° 08' 08" WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89° 51' 53" EAST A DISTANCE OF 171.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING,
AND;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED
MAY 1, 2014 AS 20140285397 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE SOUTH 7.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 40.00 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
EAST HALF OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 38, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
TOGETHER WITH A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST
HALF OF LOT 11, MARICOPA GARDEN FARMS AS RECORDED IN BOOK 11 OF
MAPS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27, FROM WHICH
THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27 BEARS SOUTH 89° 51* 53"
WEST (BASIS OF BEARINGS), A DISTANCE OF 2624.47 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 27, SOUTH 89° 51' 53" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 328.06 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 11;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, AND ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 11, SOUTH 00° 08' 28" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 40.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BROADWAY ROAD AND
THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00° 08' 28" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 595.34 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMARISK
AVENUE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, AND ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE, SOUTH 89° 51' 59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 24.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE PARK UNIT FIVE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 89 OF
MAPS, PAGE 6, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, AND ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF SAID INDEPENDENCE PARK UNIT FIVE, NORTH 00° 08' 12" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 595.34 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BROADWAY
ROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 89° 51' 53" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 24.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of November 19, 2025,
Planning Hearing Officer Action - PHO-1-25--Z-131-99-7 - Southeast Corner of
59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025. This
ratification requires formal action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-131-99-7
Existing Zoning: CP/GCP
Acreage: 7.82
Owner: Peter Shaplin, Arizona Becknell Investors 2007 LLC
Applicant: Daniel Chambers, QuikTrip Corporation
Representative: Robert Hannen, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding outdoor activity.
VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this request on November
18, 2025 and recommended approval with an additional stipulation by a vote of 4-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a modification
and an additional stipulation.
Location
Southeast corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 5875 W. Lower Buckeye Rd.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Stipulations – PHO-1-25--Z-131-99-7
Location: Southeast corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
STIPULATIONS:
1. That No loading docks or outdoor activity, other than passenger vehicle
parking AND FUELING AREAS, shall be located between the north, south
and west perimeter boundary of the property and adjacent buildings.
2. That the area zoned A-1 conform to the commerce park development
standards.
3. That the Estrella Village Major Street Landscape Plan be utilized for all
landscaping along Lower Buckey Road and 59th Avenue.
4.
T
That the applicant shall notify the City Archeologist, prior to any
constructional grading activity. The State Historic Preservation Officer and
the City of Phoenix Archaeologist shall be notified if during construction
5.
6.
AF
any archaeological artifacts or remains are found.
That 8-foot-wide multi-purpose trail be provided along the south side of
Lower Buckeye Road, based on the guidance provided in the Estrella
Village Multi-Purpose Trail Plan.
That a transit stop/shelter be provided east bound on Lower Buckeye
7.
D
Road east of 59th Avenue, providing convenient access to pedestrians
and persons with disabilities as per guidance from the Public Transit
R
Department.
That the following right of way standards shall be provided:
A. Right of way totaling 40 feet and 10 food sidewalk easement shall be
dedicated for the south half of Lower Buckeye Road;
B. Right of way totaling 40 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of
59th Avenue;
C. A 21 foot by 21 foot right of way triangle shall be dedicated at the
southeast corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road;
D. Sufficient right of way shall be dedicated to accommodate a far side
bus bay (Detail P-1257) on Lower Buckeye Road at 59th Avenue.
8. That the developer shall construct all streets adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median
islands, landscaping and other incidental as per plans approved by the
City. Improvements shall comply with all ADA standards.
9. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
T
AF
DR
Report
Planning Hearing Officer Action - PHO-1-25--Z-131-99-7 - Southeast Corner of
59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025. This
ratification requires formal action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-131-99-7
Existing Zoning: CP/GCP
Acreage: 7.82
Owner: Peter Shaplin, Arizona Becknell Investors 2007 LLC
Applicant: Daniel Chambers, QuikTrip Corporation
Representative: Robert Hannen, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding outdoor activity.
VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this request on November
18, 2025 and recommended approval with an additional stipulation by a vote of 4-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a modification
and an additional stipulation.
Location
Southeast corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 5875 W. Lower Buckeye Rd.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Stipulations – PHO-1-25--Z-131-99-7
Location: Southeast corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
STIPULATIONS:
1. That No loading docks or outdoor activity, other than passenger vehicle
parking AND FUELING AREAS, shall be located between the north, south
and west perimeter boundary of the property and adjacent buildings.
2. That the area zoned A-1 conform to the commerce park development
standards.
3. That the Estrella Village Major Street Landscape Plan be utilized for all
landscaping along Lower Buckey Road and 59th Avenue.
4.
T
That the applicant shall notify the City Archeologist, prior to any
constructional grading activity. The State Historic Preservation Officer and
the City of Phoenix Archaeologist shall be notified if during construction
5.
6.
AF
any archaeological artifacts or remains are found.
That 8-foot-wide multi-purpose trail be provided along the south side of
Lower Buckeye Road, based on the guidance provided in the Estrella
Village Multi-Purpose Trail Plan.
That a transit stop/shelter be provided east bound on Lower Buckeye
7.
D
Road east of 59th Avenue, providing convenient access to pedestrians
and persons with disabilities as per guidance from the Public Transit
R
Department.
That the following right of way standards shall be provided:
A. Right of way totaling 40 feet and 10 food sidewalk easement shall be
dedicated for the south half of Lower Buckeye Road;
B. Right of way totaling 40 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of
59th Avenue;
C. A 21 foot by 21 foot right of way triangle shall be dedicated at the
southeast corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road;
D. Sufficient right of way shall be dedicated to accommodate a far side
bus bay (Detail P-1257) on Lower Buckeye Road at 59th Avenue.
8. That the developer shall construct all streets adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median
islands, landscaping and other incidental as per plans approved by the
City. Improvements shall comply with all ADA standards.
9. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
T
AF
DR
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-5-25--Z-47-
19-7 - Approximately 1,900 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue
and Baseline Road (Ordinance G-7472) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025. This
ratification requires formal action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-5-25--Z-47-19-7
Existing Zoning: R-4
Acreage: 23.27
Owner: Brian Huffaker, Laveen Park Place Apts LLC (Hawkins Companies LLC)
Applicant / Representative: George Pasquel III, Withey Morris Baugh P.L.C.
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 34 regarding general conformance to the site plan,
landscape plan, and elevations date stamped October 1, 2021.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this request on November
17, 2025, and recommended approval by a vote of 11-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval.
Location
Approximately 1,900 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline
Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 8352 S. 59th Avenue
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO REZONING APPLICATION Z-47-19-7
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-6931.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the site located at
approximately 1900 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline
Road in a portion of Section 6, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, are hereby modified to read as set
forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
Overall Site
1. The development shall be in General Conformance to the Conceptual
Master Site Plan date stamped October 23, 2019, with specific regard to
the site locations, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. All parking areas adjacent to public streets, excluding the freeway, shall be
screened by a combination of decorative screen walls and a minimum 3-
foot-high landscaped mound/berm along the perimeter streets, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. All sidewalks adjacent to public streets shall be detached with a minimum
5-foot wide continuous landscape area located between the sidewalk and
back of curb; and shall include minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy
single-trunk shade trees (limbed-up a minimum of 10-feet clear from finish
grade), planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings; and minimum
5-gallon shrubs with a maximum mature height of 2 feet providing 75
percent live cover, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. If there is limited right-of-way along the Baseline Road
frontage requiring a modified cross section, an attached sidewalk design
may be considered, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways at
vehicular crossings, constructed of decorative pavement that visually
contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces for internal
drive aisles and accessways, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development for review and approval by the Street Transportation Department
(except for the Site A, Harkins) prior to the submittal of preliminary site plans.
Additional right-of-way and street improvements may be required following TIS
review. Phasing of off-site improvements must be consistent with the TIS
recommendations. Phased street improvements will require the installation of
pavement transition tapers, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development required for each phase with paving, curb, gutter, minimum 5-
foot-wide sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other incidentals,
as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
7. Open irrigation facilities are to be piped outside of right-of-way and shown on
the preliminary site plan, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
8. All multi-use trails and shared use paths shall be shaded a minimum of 50
percent with 2-inch minimum caliper, large canopy shade trees, located 5 to 8
feet from the edge of the trail, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. The right-of-way shall be dedicated, if required, and a bus pad (detail P1260 or
P1262) constructed at the following locations, unless otherwise modified by the
Planning and Development Department and Public Transit Department:
a. Eastbound Baseline Road east of 63rd Avenue. Pad shall be spaced from
the intersection of 63rd Avenue and Baseline Road according to City of
Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.
b. Three bus stop pads shall be located along Southbound 59th Avenue.
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.
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.
Site A
14. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped October 23, 2019, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
15. The maximum building height shall be limited to 56 feet.
16. There shall be a 150-foot stepback provided from 59th Avenue for buildings
over 30 feet in height.
17. A minimum of one clearly defined pedestrian connection shall be provided
from Site A to connect with the trail along the Laveen Area Conveyance
Channel with one pedestrian scale amenity (benches, tables, etc.)
provided within close proximity of the trail, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
18. A minimum of two pedestrian pathways that are a minimum of 6 feet wide
shall be provided from the west side of Site B through Site A to the
proposed buildings. The parking lot shall be designed to have minimal
vehicular drive crossings through these pathways. These pathways shall
have a minimum 50 percent shade provided by 2-inch minimum caliper
trees located in minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas and/or an
architectural shading element, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
19. A minimum of two inverted-U bicycle racks (4 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
20. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
consistent with the Street Classification Map, including the landscaped
median between the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel and the southern
boundary of Site A, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are required between
ultimate and interim street conditions, as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Shared Use Path (SUP) along the
west side of 59th Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the
improvements on 59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
22. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along the
south side of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Site B (Retail/Restaurant)
23. The maximum building height shall be limited to 30 feet within 150 feet of 59th
Avenue and 45 feet for the remainder of Site B.
24. There shall be a 150-foot stepback provided from 59th Avenue for building over
30 feet in height.
25. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations,
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:
a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the commercial corner
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:
(i) A minimum of two pedestrian pathways that are a minimum of 6 feet
wide shall be provided from 59th Avenue through the site to connect
to buildings and the pedestrian pathways at Site A. The parking lot
shall be designed to have minimal vehicular drive crossings through
these pathways. These pathways shall have a minimum 50 percent
shade provided by 2-inch minimum caliper trees located in minimum
5-foot wide landscape areas and/or an architectural shading
element.
(ii) A minimum of two clearly defined pedestrian connections shall be
provided to connect with the trail along the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel with two pedestrian scale amenities (open
space, benches, tables, etc.) provided within close proximity of the
trail.
b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.
c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
window fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least
every 50 linear feet.
d. Accent building materials such as: native stone, burnt adobe, textured
brick, wood (when shaded by overhangs or deep recesses), slump
block, ceramic tile (matte finish), stucco and/or exposed aggregate
concrete shall be used on buildings or otherwise demonstrate that the
architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project and
development in the area.
26. Drive-through restaurant pick-up windows shall be architecturally integrated
in proportion, color, material and texture to the building it serves by
providing awnings or architecturally integrated structures for weather
protection, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
27. Drive-through restaurant facilities shall provide a minimum of 250 square
feet of outdoor seating areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
28. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
2-inch minimum caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located
within minimum 5-foot wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
29. A minimum of two inverted-U bicycle racks (4 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
30. A minimum of 30 percent of the linear frontage of the buildings, that has
main public entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with
planting. Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for
planting materials to thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30
percent shading of area at maturity, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
31. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
consistent with the Street Classification Map, including landscaped median
between the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel and the southern
boundary of Site B, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are required between
ultimate and interim street conditions, as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
32. The developer shall construct a 10-foot Shared Use Path (SUP) on 59th
Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the improvements
on 59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel.
33. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along the
southside of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Site C (Multifamily)
34. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan,
landscape plan, and elevations date stamped OCTOBER 10, 2025,
October 1, 2021, as modified by the following Stipulations and approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
35. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking as required in Chapter
13, Section 1307.h for multi-family development, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
36. There shall be a minimum of 10 percent common area open space provided
onsite, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
37. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by a
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located within
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
38. The developer shall submit a deceleration warrant analysis to the Street
Transportation Department. I mprovements shall be consistent with the
approved analysis, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
39. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
consistent with the Street Classification Map, including the landscaped median
for the full extent of Site C, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are required between ultimate
and interim street conditions, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
40. The developer shall construct a 10-foot wide Shared Use Path (SUP) on 59th
Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the improvements on
59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel.
41. The developer shall provide conduit plan and junction boxes at 59th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue on project site for future traffic signal equipment
and all work related to the construction or reconstruction of the conduit runs
and junction box installation shall be the responsibility of the Developer, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Site D (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park North of the LACC)
42. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:
a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the development
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:
(i) A minimum of two pedestrian connections to the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel.
(ii) There shall be an employee open space area provided adjacent to
the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The open space areas shall
provide a minimum of one amenity (tables, benches, yard games,
etc.) each.
b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.
c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet.
d. Ensuring architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project
and development in the area.
43. There shall be a minimum of one exterior employee balcony provided on each
four-story building, that is a minimum of 12 feet in depth and a minimum of 200
square feet in size, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
44. The glazing on all building windows shall have a maximum reflectivity of 20
percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
45. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located
within minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
46. A minimum of six inverted-U bicycle racks (12 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
47. A minimum of 30 percent of building linear frontage, that has main public
entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with planting.
Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for planting
materials to thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30 percent
shading of area at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
48. The developer shall protect in place the shared-use path and 20-foot wide
public trail/sidewalk easement along the north side of the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
49. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide public trail/sidewalk easement
along the west side of the 202 Loop or adjacent to 63rd Avenue, whichever
provides greater connectivity, at the time of preliminary site plan approval.
Developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide shared-use path (SUP) within the
easement as indicated in section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG
Supplement, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
50. A minimum 10-foot public multi-use trail shall be constructed within a 30-
foot easement in accordance with MAG supplemental detail 429 along the
south side of Baseline Road to connect to the trails to the east and west,
as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.
51. The developer shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the full parcel limits
for the south half of Baseline Road, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
52. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way for the
full parcel limits for the east half of 63rd Avenue. Additional right-of-way
dedications and improvements as required by the TIS, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
53. The developer shall dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way for the full parcel limits for
the east half of 63rd Avenue and improvements as required by the TIS, as
approved by the Planning and Development. Asphalt pavement transition
tapers are required between ultimate and interim street conditions, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
54. The developer shall dedicate a 25-foot by 25-foot right-of-way triangle at the
southeast corner of Baseline Road and 63rd Avenue, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Site E (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park South of the LACC)
55. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:
a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the development
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:
(i) A minimum of two pedestrian connections to the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel.
(ii) There shall be an employee open space area provided adjacent to
the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The open space areas shall
provide a minimum of one amenity (tables, benches, yard games,
etc.) each.
b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.
c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet.
d. Ensuring architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project
and development in the area.
56. There shall be a minimum of one exterior employee balcony provided on each
four-story building that is a minimum of 12 feet in depth and a minimum of 200
square feet in size, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
57. The glazing on all building windows shall have a maximum reflectivity of 20
percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
58. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located
within minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
59. A minimum of six inverted-Li bicycle racks (12 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
60. A minimum of 30 percent of building linear frontage, that has main public
entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with planting.
Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for planting
materials to thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30 percent
shading of area at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
61. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide public trail/sidewalk easement
along the west side of the 202 Loop Freeway or adjacent to 63rd Avenue,
whichever provides greater connectivity, at the time of preliminary site plan
approval. Developer shall construct a 10-foot wide shared-use path (SUP)
within the easement per Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG
Supplement, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
62. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along
the southside of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
63. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way for the
full parcel limits for the east half of 63rd Avenue. Additional right-of-way
dedications and improvements as required by the TIS, and as approved by
the Street Transportation Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers
are required between ultimate and interim street conditions, excepting the
frontage of APN 300-020-017C, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6931, this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6931 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site
until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
________________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By: _________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (3 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-5-25--Z-47-19-7
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:
A PORTION OF LOT 2 ACCORDING TO THE LOT COMBINATION MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1309 OF MAPS,
PAGE 41, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE
2 EAST OF THE GILA & SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 FROM WHICH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
THEREOF BEARS SOUTH 0 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1581.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A
DISTANCE OF 846.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 0 MINUTES 0 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 702.42 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6;
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 4 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF
17.60 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 0 MINUTES 0 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 187.62 FEET TO A POINT
OF CURVE TO THE LEFT;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 35 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 0 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 341.74 FEET TO A POINT OF
REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 480.52 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 36 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 204.86 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND THE POINT OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
WEST, WITH A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 17 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, A CHORD
DISTANCE OF 762.16 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF
895.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 3 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF
787.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 256.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2,
A DISTANCE OF 289.53 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2,
A DISTANCE OF 691.96 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A
DISTANCE OF 717.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 945,688 SQUARE FEET OR 21.710 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
North: 5714.8633' East: 4300.6628'
Segment #1: Line
Course: N90° 00' 00"E Length: 702.42'
North: 5714.8633' East: 5003.0828'
Segment #2: Line
Course: N0° 14' 04"E Length: 17.60'
North: 5732.4631' East: 5003.1548'
Segment #3: Line
Course: N90° 00' 00"E Length: 187.62'
North: 5732.4631' East: 5190.7748'
Segment #4: Curve
Length: 341.74' Radius: 550.00'
Delta: 35°36'00" Tangent: 176.59'
Chord: 336.27' Course: N72° 12' 00"E
Course In: N0° 00' 00"E Course Out: S35° 36' 00"E
RP North: 6282.4631' East: 5190.7748'
End North: 5835.2593' East: 5510.9474'
Segment #5: Curve
Length: 204.86' Radius: 480.52'
Delta: 24°25'36" Tangent: 104.01'
Chord: 203.31' Course: N66° 36' 48"E
Course In: S35° 36' 00"E Course Out: N11° 10' 24"W
RP North: 5444.5481' East: 5790.6691'
End North: 5915.9600' East: 5697.5549'
Segment #6: Curve
Length: 787.30' Radius: 895.00'
Delta: 50°24'03" Tangent: 421.16'
Chord: 762.16' Course: S17° 37' 16"W
Course In: S82° 25' 14"W Course Out: S47° 10' 43"E
RP North: 5797.9088' East: 4810.3745'
End North: 5189.5612' East: 5466.8330'
Segment #7: Line
Course: S42° 49' 17"W Length: 256.23'
North: 5001.6226' East: 5292.6695'
Segment #8: Line
Course: S89° 43' 27"W Length: 289.53'
North: 5000.2287' East: 5003.1429'
Segment #9: Line
Course: S89° 48' 16"W Length: 691.96'
North: 4997.8670' East: 4311.1869'
Segment #10: Line
Course: N0° 50' 29"W Length: 717.07'
North: 5714.8597' East: 4300.6571'
Perimeter: 4196.32' Area: 945688 Sq. Ft.
Error Closure: 0.0067 Course: S57° 42' 28"W
Error North: -0.00359 East: -0.00568
Precision 1: 621517.91
Report
19-7 - Approximately 1,900 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue
and Baseline Road (Ordinance G-7472) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve the
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on November 19, 2025. This
ratification requires formal action only.
Summary
Application: PHO-5-25--Z-47-19-7
Existing Zoning: R-4
Acreage: 23.27
Owner: Brian Huffaker, Laveen Park Place Apts LLC (Hawkins Companies LLC)
Applicant / Representative: George Pasquel III, Withey Morris Baugh P.L.C.
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 34 regarding general conformance to the site plan,
landscape plan, and elevations date stamped October 1, 2021.
VPC Action: The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this request on November
17, 2025, and recommended approval by a vote of 11-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval.
Location
Approximately 1,900 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline
Road
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 8352 S. 59th Avenue
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO REZONING APPLICATION Z-47-19-7
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-6931.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the site located at
approximately 1900 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline
Road in a portion of Section 6, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, are hereby modified to read as set
forth below.
STIPULATIONS:
Overall Site
1. The development shall be in General Conformance to the Conceptual
Master Site Plan date stamped October 23, 2019, with specific regard to
the site locations, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. All parking areas adjacent to public streets, excluding the freeway, shall be
screened by a combination of decorative screen walls and a minimum 3-
foot-high landscaped mound/berm along the perimeter streets, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. All sidewalks adjacent to public streets shall be detached with a minimum
5-foot wide continuous landscape area located between the sidewalk and
back of curb; and shall include minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy
single-trunk shade trees (limbed-up a minimum of 10-feet clear from finish
grade), planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings; and minimum
5-gallon shrubs with a maximum mature height of 2 feet providing 75
percent live cover, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. If there is limited right-of-way along the Baseline Road
frontage requiring a modified cross section, an attached sidewalk design
may be considered, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways at
vehicular crossings, constructed of decorative pavement that visually
contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces for internal
drive aisles and accessways, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development for review and approval by the Street Transportation Department
(except for the Site A, Harkins) prior to the submittal of preliminary site plans.
Additional right-of-way and street improvements may be required following TIS
review. Phasing of off-site improvements must be consistent with the TIS
recommendations. Phased street improvements will require the installation of
pavement transition tapers, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development required for each phase with paving, curb, gutter, minimum 5-
foot-wide sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other incidentals,
as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
7. Open irrigation facilities are to be piped outside of right-of-way and shown on
the preliminary site plan, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
8. All multi-use trails and shared use paths shall be shaded a minimum of 50
percent with 2-inch minimum caliper, large canopy shade trees, located 5 to 8
feet from the edge of the trail, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. The right-of-way shall be dedicated, if required, and a bus pad (detail P1260 or
P1262) constructed at the following locations, unless otherwise modified by the
Planning and Development Department and Public Transit Department:
a. Eastbound Baseline Road east of 63rd Avenue. Pad shall be spaced from
the intersection of 63rd Avenue and Baseline Road according to City of
Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.
b. Three bus stop pads shall be located along Southbound 59th Avenue.
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.
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.
Site A
14. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped October 23, 2019, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
15. The maximum building height shall be limited to 56 feet.
16. There shall be a 150-foot stepback provided from 59th Avenue for buildings
over 30 feet in height.
17. A minimum of one clearly defined pedestrian connection shall be provided
from Site A to connect with the trail along the Laveen Area Conveyance
Channel with one pedestrian scale amenity (benches, tables, etc.)
provided within close proximity of the trail, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
18. A minimum of two pedestrian pathways that are a minimum of 6 feet wide
shall be provided from the west side of Site B through Site A to the
proposed buildings. The parking lot shall be designed to have minimal
vehicular drive crossings through these pathways. These pathways shall
have a minimum 50 percent shade provided by 2-inch minimum caliper
trees located in minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas and/or an
architectural shading element, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
19. A minimum of two inverted-U bicycle racks (4 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
20. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
consistent with the Street Classification Map, including the landscaped
median between the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel and the southern
boundary of Site A, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are required between
ultimate and interim street conditions, as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Shared Use Path (SUP) along the
west side of 59th Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the
improvements on 59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
22. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along the
south side of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Site B (Retail/Restaurant)
23. The maximum building height shall be limited to 30 feet within 150 feet of 59th
Avenue and 45 feet for the remainder of Site B.
24. There shall be a 150-foot stepback provided from 59th Avenue for building over
30 feet in height.
25. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations,
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:
a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the commercial corner
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:
(i) A minimum of two pedestrian pathways that are a minimum of 6 feet
wide shall be provided from 59th Avenue through the site to connect
to buildings and the pedestrian pathways at Site A. The parking lot
shall be designed to have minimal vehicular drive crossings through
these pathways. These pathways shall have a minimum 50 percent
shade provided by 2-inch minimum caliper trees located in minimum
5-foot wide landscape areas and/or an architectural shading
element.
(ii) A minimum of two clearly defined pedestrian connections shall be
provided to connect with the trail along the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel with two pedestrian scale amenities (open
space, benches, tables, etc.) provided within close proximity of the
trail.
b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.
c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
window fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least
every 50 linear feet.
d. Accent building materials such as: native stone, burnt adobe, textured
brick, wood (when shaded by overhangs or deep recesses), slump
block, ceramic tile (matte finish), stucco and/or exposed aggregate
concrete shall be used on buildings or otherwise demonstrate that the
architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project and
development in the area.
26. Drive-through restaurant pick-up windows shall be architecturally integrated
in proportion, color, material and texture to the building it serves by
providing awnings or architecturally integrated structures for weather
protection, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
27. Drive-through restaurant facilities shall provide a minimum of 250 square
feet of outdoor seating areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
28. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
2-inch minimum caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located
within minimum 5-foot wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
29. A minimum of two inverted-U bicycle racks (4 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
30. A minimum of 30 percent of the linear frontage of the buildings, that has
main public entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with
planting. Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for
planting materials to thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30
percent shading of area at maturity, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
31. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
consistent with the Street Classification Map, including landscaped median
between the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel and the southern
boundary of Site B, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are required between
ultimate and interim street conditions, as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
32. The developer shall construct a 10-foot Shared Use Path (SUP) on 59th
Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the improvements
on 59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel.
33. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along the
southside of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Site C (Multifamily)
34. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan,
landscape plan, and elevations date stamped OCTOBER 10, 2025,
October 1, 2021, as modified by the following Stipulations and approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
35. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking as required in Chapter
13, Section 1307.h for multi-family development, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
36. There shall be a minimum of 10 percent common area open space provided
onsite, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
37. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by a
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located within
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
38. The developer shall submit a deceleration warrant analysis to the Street
Transportation Department. I mprovements shall be consistent with the
approved analysis, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
39. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
consistent with the Street Classification Map, including the landscaped median
for the full extent of Site C, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are required between ultimate
and interim street conditions, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
40. The developer shall construct a 10-foot wide Shared Use Path (SUP) on 59th
Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the improvements on
59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel.
41. The developer shall provide conduit plan and junction boxes at 59th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue on project site for future traffic signal equipment
and all work related to the construction or reconstruction of the conduit runs
and junction box installation shall be the responsibility of the Developer, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Site D (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park North of the LACC)
42. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:
a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the development
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:
(i) A minimum of two pedestrian connections to the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel.
(ii) There shall be an employee open space area provided adjacent to
the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The open space areas shall
provide a minimum of one amenity (tables, benches, yard games,
etc.) each.
b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.
c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet.
d. Ensuring architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project
and development in the area.
43. There shall be a minimum of one exterior employee balcony provided on each
four-story building, that is a minimum of 12 feet in depth and a minimum of 200
square feet in size, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
44. The glazing on all building windows shall have a maximum reflectivity of 20
percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
45. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located
within minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
46. A minimum of six inverted-U bicycle racks (12 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
47. A minimum of 30 percent of building linear frontage, that has main public
entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with planting.
Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for planting
materials to thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30 percent
shading of area at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
48. The developer shall protect in place the shared-use path and 20-foot wide
public trail/sidewalk easement along the north side of the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
49. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide public trail/sidewalk easement
along the west side of the 202 Loop or adjacent to 63rd Avenue, whichever
provides greater connectivity, at the time of preliminary site plan approval.
Developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide shared-use path (SUP) within the
easement as indicated in section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG
Supplement, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
50. A minimum 10-foot public multi-use trail shall be constructed within a 30-
foot easement in accordance with MAG supplemental detail 429 along the
south side of Baseline Road to connect to the trails to the east and west,
as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.
51. The developer shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the full parcel limits
for the south half of Baseline Road, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
52. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way for the
full parcel limits for the east half of 63rd Avenue. Additional right-of-way
dedications and improvements as required by the TIS, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
53. The developer shall dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way for the full parcel limits for
the east half of 63rd Avenue and improvements as required by the TIS, as
approved by the Planning and Development. Asphalt pavement transition
tapers are required between ultimate and interim street conditions, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
54. The developer shall dedicate a 25-foot by 25-foot right-of-way triangle at the
southeast corner of Baseline Road and 63rd Avenue, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Site E (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park South of the LACC)
55. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:
a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the development
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:
(i) A minimum of two pedestrian connections to the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel.
(ii) There shall be an employee open space area provided adjacent to
the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The open space areas shall
provide a minimum of one amenity (tables, benches, yard games,
etc.) each.
b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.
c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet.
d. Ensuring architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project
and development in the area.
56. There shall be a minimum of one exterior employee balcony provided on each
four-story building that is a minimum of 12 feet in depth and a minimum of 200
square feet in size, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
57. The glazing on all building windows shall have a maximum reflectivity of 20
percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
58. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located
within minimum 5-foot-wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
59. A minimum of six inverted-Li bicycle racks (12 spaces) shall be provided for
each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
60. A minimum of 30 percent of building linear frontage, that has main public
entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with planting.
Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for planting
materials to thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30 percent
shading of area at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
61. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide public trail/sidewalk easement
along the west side of the 202 Loop Freeway or adjacent to 63rd Avenue,
whichever provides greater connectivity, at the time of preliminary site plan
approval. Developer shall construct a 10-foot wide shared-use path (SUP)
within the easement per Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG
Supplement, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
62. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along
the southside of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
63. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way for the
full parcel limits for the east half of 63rd Avenue. Additional right-of-way
dedications and improvements as required by the TIS, and as approved by
the Street Transportation Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers
are required between ultimate and interim street conditions, excepting the
frontage of APN 300-020-017C, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6931, this portion of the rezoning is now
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6931 and as modified in
Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site
until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
________________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By: _________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (3 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-5-25--Z-47-19-7
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:
A PORTION OF LOT 2 ACCORDING TO THE LOT COMBINATION MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1309 OF MAPS,
PAGE 41, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE
2 EAST OF THE GILA & SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 FROM WHICH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
THEREOF BEARS SOUTH 0 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1581.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A
DISTANCE OF 846.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 0 MINUTES 0 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 702.42 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 6;
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 4 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF
17.60 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 0 MINUTES 0 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 187.62 FEET TO A POINT
OF CURVE TO THE LEFT;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 35 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 0 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 341.74 FEET TO A POINT OF
REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 480.52 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 36 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 204.86 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND THE POINT OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
WEST, WITH A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 17 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, A CHORD
DISTANCE OF 762.16 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF
895.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 3 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF
787.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 256.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2,
A DISTANCE OF 289.53 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2,
A DISTANCE OF 691.96 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A
DISTANCE OF 717.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 945,688 SQUARE FEET OR 21.710 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
North: 5714.8633' East: 4300.6628'
Segment #1: Line
Course: N90° 00' 00"E Length: 702.42'
North: 5714.8633' East: 5003.0828'
Segment #2: Line
Course: N0° 14' 04"E Length: 17.60'
North: 5732.4631' East: 5003.1548'
Segment #3: Line
Course: N90° 00' 00"E Length: 187.62'
North: 5732.4631' East: 5190.7748'
Segment #4: Curve
Length: 341.74' Radius: 550.00'
Delta: 35°36'00" Tangent: 176.59'
Chord: 336.27' Course: N72° 12' 00"E
Course In: N0° 00' 00"E Course Out: S35° 36' 00"E
RP North: 6282.4631' East: 5190.7748'
End North: 5835.2593' East: 5510.9474'
Segment #5: Curve
Length: 204.86' Radius: 480.52'
Delta: 24°25'36" Tangent: 104.01'
Chord: 203.31' Course: N66° 36' 48"E
Course In: S35° 36' 00"E Course Out: N11° 10' 24"W
RP North: 5444.5481' East: 5790.6691'
End North: 5915.9600' East: 5697.5549'
Segment #6: Curve
Length: 787.30' Radius: 895.00'
Delta: 50°24'03" Tangent: 421.16'
Chord: 762.16' Course: S17° 37' 16"W
Course In: S82° 25' 14"W Course Out: S47° 10' 43"E
RP North: 5797.9088' East: 4810.3745'
End North: 5189.5612' East: 5466.8330'
Segment #7: Line
Course: S42° 49' 17"W Length: 256.23'
North: 5001.6226' East: 5292.6695'
Segment #8: Line
Course: S89° 43' 27"W Length: 289.53'
North: 5000.2287' East: 5003.1429'
Segment #9: Line
Course: S89° 48' 16"W Length: 691.96'
North: 4997.8670' East: 4311.1869'
Segment #10: Line
Course: N0° 50' 29"W Length: 717.07'
North: 5714.8597' East: 4300.6571'
Perimeter: 4196.32' Area: 945688 Sq. Ft.
Error Closure: 0.0067 Course: S57° 42' 28"W
Error North: -0.00359 East: -0.00568
Precision 1: 621517.91
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-PV-1-
25-2 - Approximately 660 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road
and Bell Road (Resolution 22357) - District 2
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if
approved. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 4.32
acres from Industrial to Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre. This is a companion
case to Z-41-25-2 and should be heard first, followed by Z-41-25-2.
Summary
Application: GPA-PV-1-25-2
Current Designation: Industrial
Requested Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 4.32
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 6, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 3, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 9-3.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 7079 E. Bell Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-PV-1-25-2,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2025 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 22191, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-PV-1-25-2. The 4.32 acres of
site located approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road
and Bell Road is designated as Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2025 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-2- Resolution
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
-3- Resolution
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
October 20, 2025
Application: GPA-PV-1-25-2
Applicant/Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings LLC
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner
of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
Acreage: 4.32 acres
Current Plan Designation: Industrial
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential
Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee Date: November 3, 2025
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD), proposes development that is a compatible transition between the single-
family residential development and storage facility on the west to the existing
commercial and proposed higher density residential development on the east
abutting Scottsdale Road.
2) The multifamily land use designation is appropriate as it will diversify the housing
types and density ranges in the area. This can help address the housing
shortage and alleviate the continuous need of housing in the area.
3) The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2, provides enhanced landscaping and
shade standards to make the proposed development a compatible addition to the
area.
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. The site is occupied by a two-story multi-tenant
commercial shopping center. Companion Case Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale
Crossing PUD) is a request to rezone the subject site from C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for multifamily residential.
Currently the site has a General Plan Land Use Map designation of Industrial. The
requested General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 15+ dwelling units
per acre will allow for additional housing choices in the area. Recent development
patterns suggest that there is a growing demand for housing choices in the Paradise
Valley Village. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map change will allow for the
continuation of these development trends across the greater area and will allow more
residential land uses to locate in proximity to employment areas, regional malls and
commercial centers such as the North Scottsdale Airpark, Kierland Commons and the
Promenade.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
NORTH
To the north, across Bell Road, is designated Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned and
the existing land use is the canal and multifamily residential.
SOUTH
To the south is designated Industrial and includes hotels and a self-service storage
warehouse.
WEST
To the west is designated Industrial and contains a self-service storage warehouse.
EAST
To the east, across 71st Street, is designated Industrial and contains a pharmacy/retail
use.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development
and redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
This request and the concurrent rezoning application for the Residences at
Scottsdale Crossing PUD promotes redevelopment of the site by allowing for an
increase in intensity at a scale compatible with surrounding properties in the
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Page 3
Kierland area. The development is located in a mixed-use corridor where nearby
properties are approved for multifamily residential or commercial. The project site
is also within a designated employment center known as the Desert
Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center. The concentration of people near
employment uses promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment will further diversify the
existing land use map designations in this part of the City by allowing multifamily
uses in a major employment center. This will help to provide diverse housing
opportunities in this area to both current and future residents.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new
development or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character
of the surrounding neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development
standards to prevent negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The companion PUD narrative incorporates standards that are compatible in
scale and intensity with the surrounding area and properties adjacent to the site.
The surrounding nearby properties to the south and east are zoned for
development of similar scale and intensity of the proposed PUD. Additionally, to
be sensitive in scale and character of nearby properties the PUD incorporates a
step down in height approach to the single-family residential properties on the
west.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-PV-1-25-2 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and policies of the General Plan and will result in a land use designation that will
continue to support surrounding uses while maximizing the property’s location in an
employment center. This proposed Minor General Plan Amendment request is
consistent with surrounding land uses and General Plan Land Use Map designations in
the general area.
Writer
Matteo Moric
October 20, 2025
Exhibits
Sketch Map (Colored)
Sketch Map (Black and White)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-PV-1-25-2 ACRES: 4.32 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: PARADISE VALLEY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area CAP
CAN
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac AL
Residential 15+ du/ac
WAY
68TH
Commercial
SCOTTSDALE RD
Industrial BELL
RD
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
69TH PL
Commercial / Commerce / Residential 15+ du/ac
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area CAP
CAN
AL
WAY
Residential 15+ du/ac
68TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
BELL
RD
69TH PL
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-PV-1-25-2 ACRES: 4.32 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: PARADISE VALLEY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
CAP
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Proposed Change Area CAN
AL
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
WAY
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Residential 15+ du/ac E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
68TH
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
SCOTTSDALE RD
Commercial
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
BELL
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Industrial
RD
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
69TH PL
E E E E
Commercial / Commerce Park / Residential 15+ du/ac
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area CAP
CAN
AL
WAY
Residential 15+ du/ac
68TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
BELL
RD
69TH PL
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Date of VPC Meeting November 3, 2025
Request From Industrial
Request To Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-3
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and companion Planned
Unit Development (PUD) rezoning case. Mr. Moric stated these cases would be heard
together. Mr. Moric shared a map identifying the location and size of the subject site and
provided background and contextual information about the requests.
Mr. Moric noted that although the site is less than 10 acres in size, the exception
regarding any residential request in a designated industrial or commerce park area is
triggered, thus a minor General Plan Amendment is required. Mr. Moric stated the
findings and the staff recommendation of approval for the General Plan Amendment
request.
Mr. Moric then presented the zone change request and shared a map of the
surrounding zoning, identified the proposed development standards, the site plan,
building elevations and summarized the design guidelines. Mr. Moric also stated staff
received four letters of opposition regarding the proposal and noted the community
concerns. Mr. Moric summarized the staff findings and stated staff recommended
approval subject to stipulations. Mr. Moric then summed up the recommended
stipulations and the next steps for the proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 337
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, reminded the Committee that he presented this
case previously for information only. Mr. Wood stated the site is just west of the
intersection of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. Mr. Wood said immediately east of the
site was a CVS Pharmacy and at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road was a
previously approved PUD. Mr. Wood explained there was a mini-storage warehouse
site directly west of the subject site and next to that was a single-family residential
subdivision. Mr. Wood noted some additional context that hotels were located south of
the subject site, and further south was the Kierland area and east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood said one of the questions which was raised at the previous meeting was
regarding 71st Street and he reminded the Committee that it is a private drive shared by
all the property owners that are adjacent to it and Mr. Wood emphasized it is not a city
street. Mr. Wood said all the traffic from the proposal moves off 71st Street and
explained the movement and median breaks in the area. Mr. Wood said the only reason
people would travel south on 71st Street is if they are going to the gas station or
traveling south down Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said the site was never built as
industrial but that is what the General Plan is showing it designated as, so they are now
requesting a General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Residential 15+ dwelling units
per acre and a rezone from C-2 to PUD. Mr. Wood stated the conceptual site plan
proposes 315 dwelling units. Mr. Wood explained he loved the site plan and building
elevations as most recent developments seem to be boxes and this has lots of
movement and articulation to create visual interest in the architecture which will create a
special place. Mr. Wood said it would have a wrap parking structure, where the units
wrap around the structure and there would be parking on each floor. Mr. Wood indicated
he lives in Optima Camelback in the Old Town Scottsdale area, where the car parking is
underground and everything must come up and down such as groceries. Mr. Wood said
the building utilizes a step-down approach for the height to reduce as it moves west
closer to the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood shared information related to nearby sites such as the Manor Scottsdale at
13220 North Scottsdale Road, which was the old L.A. Fitness site where they proposed
a four- and five-story development next to single family residences. Mr. Wood explained
that they initially had lots of opposition but had worked with neighbors to ensure they
were satisfied as they had no opposition at the hearing.
Mr. Wood showed another site which was the Kierland II Office Building at 16260 North
71st Street which was 56 feet tall from the single-family residential property lines 160
feet away, and 70 feet tall, 220 feet away from the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood explained the proposal is lushly landscaped, with landscaping between the
curb and sidewalk, and between the sidewalk and the building. Mr. Wood said
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 338
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
everything has visual interest on the site plan and nothing is the same. Mr. Wood added
they are proposing balconies which are inverted and exterior oriented.
Mr. Wood then showed several conceptual renderings. Mr. Wood said the current C-2
zoning allowed approximately 325 more uses than the proposed multifamily residences.
Mr. Wood also shared a table breaking out the trips generated from the existing C-2
zoning to the proposed PUD zoning. Mr. Wood summed up that the proposal would
have far less traffic than the existing zoning allowed. Mr. Wood said the good news is
traffic can’t get to the single-family residences to the west so there would be no cut-
through traffic there.
Mr. Wood asked not to have the staff recommended signage stipulations and to delete
those.
Mr. Wood said they worked very closely with the neighborhood to the west. Mr. Wood
showed a community outreach map which identified where support came from. Mr.
Wood said they received 170 letters in support, 120 statements of support (verbal) and
127 neutral statements. Mr. Wood then shared a map showing which properties had
previously opposed the project but were actively collaborating towards screening
solutions, and those previously opposed and non-responsive.
Questions from Committee
Robert Goodhue asked why did the applicant not want to comply with the City of
Phoenix Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wood said there were two ways to have signs approved
with one being through the PUD rezone process and the other was to go through a
Comprehensive Sign Package application. Mr. Wood said it will take a lot of extra time
and would typically get approved unless they do something new and stupid. Mr.
Goodhue said normally developers go through the Comprehensive Sign process.
Diane Peterson had concerns with the sewer and traffic. Ms. Peterson was concerned
with the cumulative effect of building after building, “Optima after Optima”. Ms. Peterson
expressed concern with traffic going south on Scottsdale Road and said those who live
just south believed traffic is a nightmare. Ms. Peterson shared concerns about the
sewer work and capacity. Mr. Wood replied that the project’s civil engineer worked with
the City Water Services Division and there was enough sewer capacity. Ms. Peterson
added there are few egresses that go through Scottsdale Road and may not go through
the neighborhood on the west but would travel through other neighborhoods. Mr. Wood
said this project is so far north and near the freeway.
Larisa Balderrama asked about the height of the proposed building at the corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road and asked if it would be constructed. Mr. Wood noted it
was going to be 12 stories and that it would be built. Ms. Balderrama asked questions
about traffic movement and thought there may be some challenges to turn. Mr. Wood
stated there was not enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 339
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Roy Wise noted he often travels north on Scottsdale Road and thinks traffic will back up
on Scottsdale Road and is concerned that to turn left on Bell Road will be impossible.
Mr. Wise thought turning right on Bell Road and traveling to the left turn lane to turn left
on Scottsdale Road will be a challenge. Marina Stender, the applicant’s traffic engineer
for the project, explained how trips will be generated from the proposal. Ms. Stender
stated the project would not warrant a traffic signal, otherwise, a traffic signal study
would have to be requested.
Ms. Peterson asked if the cumulative effect of all the buildings around the project were
taken into consideration. Ms. Stender said as traffic engineers they are required to
analyze all existing developments and approved development and layer their trips on
top of it to see how it affects the roadway network and the capacity of the roadway. Ms.
Stender noted that the project did not trigger a full traffic study for the City of Phoenix.
Ms. Stender said the existing right and left turn lane on Bell Road was already built
longer than the minimum required.
Anna Sepic asked for clarity regarding the traffic analysis and if it included the potential
C-2 uses which did not exist. Ms. Stender said they did the analysis on both current
and potential C-2 uses.
Patrice Marcolla asked about the traffic study and wondered why it did not trigger a
traffic impact analysis. Ms. Stender said a full traffic impact analysis is not required.
Vice Chair Amber Sommer asked if the lot at the corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road was taken into account for the traffic study. Ms. Sepic stated that 251 units are to
come in at the corner. Ms. Stender said with that proposed project they would need to
do their own traffic study. Ms. Stender said currently that corner property is empty and
not generating any existing trips.
Robert Gubser asked if they recall if the project at Scottsdale Road and Bell Road will
use 71st Street as its main access. Mr. Wood said that 71st Street would be that
project’s secondary access and there would be two access points.
Ms. Sepic asked about the proposed zoning and if they were asking for a C-2 or PUD
and asked what the density is. Mr. Wood said the density is 73 dwelling units per acre
with 315 units.
Ms. Marcolla said the ITE traffic study does not seem specific to this site. Ms. Stender
said the ITE is the bible for traffic studies and there are different categories for studies.
Ms. Marcolla said this is specific for the ITE on all streets incoming and outgoing.
Mr. Wood said that the Street Transportation Department said before a site plan is
approved it would require a full Traffic Impact Study. Mr. Wood said they followed the
Street Transportation Department’s instruction.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 340
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Ms. Peterson asked if before site approval they will need to do a full traffic study. Mr.
Wood said yes.
Mr. Goodhue explained the applicant is going through a rezoning to approve the use
and once the use is approved their next step is to go through the site planning approval
process. Mr. Goodhue said the site plan comes after it is at the City Council level. Mr.
Goodhue stated in this case when looking at trip generation, the project will still need to
go through the TIA before site plan approval. Mr. Wood said after and if the proposal
gets Council approval, the applicant will need to get preliminary and final site plan
approval.
Ms. Marcolla wanted to know if there was an initial or historic traffic study for the site.
Mr. Wood was not certain but said the study would have been many years ago for a
two-story shopping center.
Kate Bauer said 1,300 residential units were being built near Mayo on the south side of
the 101 and provided information that there currently was 10.5% vacancy rate. Ms.
Bauer noted a lot of new apartments were coming and if the applicant saw a lot of
demand. Mr. Wood said he was not certain about the marketing, but his client was
planning to spend $80 to 90 million on which the lender would need to feel comfortable.
Justin Westfall, with Fifield Companies, said there were many units delivered across
the north Scottsdale and Phoenix market and there is a tremendous amount of job
growth occurring in the area. Mr. Westfall stated these include medical jobs, new
headquarters, Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) associated jobs and
with the combination of the projected job growth along with the housing shortage there
is a high demand for housing.
Ms. Peterson said her thought of the village concept is to have people live and work in
each village. Ms. Peterson was concerned these units would not be affordable and this
is an issue. Ms. Peterson added there is a shortage of housing for people who cannot
afford to live at the Optima’s such as teachers and fire fighters. Mr. Westfall said they
would provide a range from studios to three-bedroom units and most of the units would
be studios and one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there would be a variety of housing
options and would not be as expensive as Optima projects. Ms. Peterson also asked
about units for families who need more than one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there were
also two- and three-bedroom units. Mr. Westfall said there would be different price
points depending on where the units are located in the building.
Mr. Goodhue said when the Mayo Hospital was coming into the City of Phoenix, City
staff had worked with developers in that area and there was astronomical growth and
this project could help accommodate people living close to their place of employment.
Mr. Wood said he recently worked on a rezoning case of 240 acres in the Paradise
Ridge area and it anticipates 5 to 6 million square feet of additional job generation and
said some construction started but it probably will be a 20-year build out. Mr. Wood
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 341
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
added that investors and lenders will need to be satisfied the project will work, otherwise
it would not be built.
Ms. Baldarrama asked if the units will be allowed to be used for short-term rentals. Mr.
Westfall noted that for most rentals of their properties are for a minimum of 12 to 18
months. Mr. Westfall said there is not usually a sublease situation where people can
rent the units as Airbnb’s.
Ms. Baldarrama was concerned with housing shortages due to these short-term
rentals. Mr. Wood stated his developer clients do not usually allow Airbnb’s as they are
usually disruptive for other resident tenants.
Vice Chair Sommer noted the previous concern of privacy at the information meeting
and was wondering what they’d do to accommodate the west side residential neighbors.
Mr. Wood said they had reached an agreement with a few of the neighbors to raise
walls and install trees to alleviate concerns with privacy.
Mr. Gubser asked about pedestrian accessibility and if there was access on 71st
Street. Mr. Wood said there were sidewalks along 71st Street and there was a
detached sidewalk along Bell Road.
Mr. Gubser questioned if there was a pull-out for rideshares on 71st Street as he was
concerned about cars stacking. Mr. Westfall noted there was a porte-cochere where
rideshares could be pulled onto the site for drop-offs.
Public Comments
None.
Applicant Response
None.
Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.
Committee Member Robert Gubser made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-
PV-1-25-2. Committee Member Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.
VOTE:
9-3; motion to approve GPA-PV-1-25-2 passes with Committee members Franks,
Goodhue, Gubser, Hamra, Marcolla, Schmidt, Sepic, Wise and Sommer in favor;
Committee members Balderrama, Bauer, and Peterson in opposition.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 342
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 6, 2025
Request From Industrial
Request To Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Rezoning cases and noted they were for informational purposes
only at this time. Mr. Moric then introduced the applicant and representative.
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, provided the context of the area surrounding the
proposal. Mr. Wood reminded the Committee he had been in front of them several years
prior for a case at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said it was
for a high-rise apartment project that will break ground in 2026 with heights of up to 156
feet. Mr. Wood noted next to the subject site on the east is a CVS Pharmacy, to the
west is single-family subdivision, and ministorage and hotels are located to the south.
Mr. Wood added that further south is the Kierland area and to the east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood stated the subject site is currently zoned C-2 and they are proposing to
rezone to a PUD. Mr. Wood added the general plan designates the site as Industrial.
Mr. Wood showed the conceptual site plan which shows the proposed buildings facing
Bell Road and 71st Street. Mr. Wood indicated 71st Street is a private street which has
an easement to Bell Road. Mr. Wood explained how the project has its residential units
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 343
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2 - Information Only
wrap around the parking structure and noted the parking structure is as tall as the rest
of the building.
Mr. Wood stated they had been working with the neighboring residents to the west.
Mr. Wood added the conceptual plan shows movement and depth at the grade level.
Mr. Wood said there was a step-down design. Mr. Wood said the standard for the step
back design was created for the old LA Fitness site south of Kierland, where single-
family homes were on two sides and the design was where this 4-story convention was
used with similar distances to the balconies. Mr. Wood said this was used as the
guideline for the 4-story portion of the building to the property line of the single-family
residences.
Mr. Wood said staff supported lush landscaping and because the proposal has the
depth it enhances the landscape along Bell Road and as the landscaping circulates the
building itself. Mr. Wood complimented the architecture and said there was a lot of
visual interest in items such as the roofline and types of balconies including recessed
balconies. Mr. Wood added that the proposed building does not have a long boring
façade. Mr. Wood said that most developers want to take advantage of every square
foot of the interior and in this case to do more quality design they’ve included the
recessed balconies which add shade and an architectural element.
Mr. Wood stated 71st Street is the entry into the parking structure and the building
lobby. Mr. Wood shared the renderings and noted there are a tremendous number of
amenities and the parking structure would be screened and the roof becomes the
location for a pool, club house, and amenity area. Mr. Wood showed how the building
steps down as you move from east to west.
Mr. Wood indicated the site is being down zoned from C-2 which he said allows many
more uses that are typically high traffic generators. Mr. Wood shared trip generation
numbers and noted that there is no vehicular connection with this project and the
subdivision to the west. Mr. Wood added they had worked closely with the neighbors.
Questions from Committee
Ms. Diane Peterson asked about the traffic study and was wondering about traffic
traveling to and from Scottsdale and traffic going down 71st Street through other
neighborhoods which do not have an entrance on Bell Road. Mr. Wood said the traffic
study shows the use was a low traffic generator. Ms. Peterson was more concerned
with the cumulative effect of the traffic and believes this is changing the nature of some
of the neighborhoods. Mr. Wood reinforced they were a smaller traffic generator than C-
2 zoning.
Mr. Robert Goodhue said he goes to the CVS next to the subject site periodically and
of all times he has driven through the area and noted there were not many cars
traveling and thought the area at times is deserted. Mr. Goodhue asked if the neighbors
to the west next to the mini storage supported the project. Mr. Wood stated the single-
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 344
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2 - Information Only
family neighbors to the west had not shared their support yet, however, they had
worked with the neighbors very closely. Mr. Wood indicated they had worked on sight
line studies and were discussing landscaping. Mr. Wood said usually privacy is more of
an issue than the height of the building and they are trying to work with the neighbors on
this matter. Mr. Goodhue said he hoped they could satisfy concerned neighbors.
Ms. Patrice Marcolla said it is nice to see redevelopment if the spaces are not being
used and was wondering why the commercial spaces of the subject site are not being
used. Mr. Wood said the seller is not renewing leases.
Chair Anita Mortensen asked if parking is all on one level. Mr. Wood responded that
parking is on each level.
Ms. Peterson said she is concerned with the major exit from the building on an
easement which is shared by many property owners.
Chair Mortensen expressed some concerns that were raised after the meeting
associated with the multi-story building proposed at the corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road. Chair Mortensen added that the storage building to the west was not very
wide and not just one or two individuals would be concerned about height. Chair
Mortensen thought four-stories facing the single-family residences would be an issue
even if landscaping and buffers were provided in the backyards. Mr. Wood said the
single-family properties to the west were separated by about one-half a football field
away from the proposed four-story portion of the building.
Ms. Jennifer Hall asked if there was a drop-off or pick-up area for someone wanting to
use rideshare. Mr. Wood showed where on the plans there would be space for a drop
off near 71st Street. Ms. Hall asked if there was only one way into the project. Mr. Wood
said the other driveway on the west side of the site does not punch through.
Vice Chair Sommers asked about the landscaping on the west side. Kevin Farrell with
Fifield Companies noted the plants will be twenty to thirty feet tall when transported.
Chair Mortensen asked what type of trees would be planted. Mr. Wood said they had
not figured out the exact species of the plant material palette.
Ms. Hall asked about the setbacks and had concerns as a lot of buildings are going up
in the Kierland area with the buildings being built so close to the road. Mr. Wood said
this was a legitimate concern, however, he felt they addressed this through detached
sidewalks, landscape between sidewalk and the buildings and there is an open area
which breaks up the building along the street fronts.
Ms. Regina Schmidt said screening trees is the only way to get privacy. Mr. Wood
said they were working with the neighbors to help address privacy issues.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 345
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2 - Information Only
Mr. Daniel Mazza felt this was a well-done project and was impressed with the
proposed wrap shielding the parking areas.
Ms. Peterson asked about the reaction of Jackson’s Car Wash. Mr. Wood said the car
wash loves the proposal as 71st Street is an easement that everyone has a right to use.
Ms. Marcolla asked about guest parking and Maggie Dellow with the applicant said it
is at 0.5 space per required vehicle parking. Mr. Wood added that it is a gated parking
structure.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 346
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-PV-1-25-2 (Companion Case Z-41-25-2)
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale
Road and Bell Road
From: Industrial
To: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 4.32
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 10/6/2025 Information only.
Paradise Valley 11/3/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-3.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve GPA-PV-1-25-2, per the
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD),
proposes development that is a compatible transition between the single-family residential
development and storage facility on the west to the existing commercial and proposed
higher density residential development on the east abutting Scottsdale Road.
2. The multifamily land use designation is appropriate as it will diversify the housing types
and density ranges in the area. This can help address the housing shortage and alleviate
the continuous need of housing in the area.
3. The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2, provides enhanced landscaping and shade
standards to make the proposed development a compatible addition to the area.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Report
25-2 - Approximately 660 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road
and Bell Road (Resolution 22357) - District 2
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if
approved. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 4.32
acres from Industrial to Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre. This is a companion
case to Z-41-25-2 and should be heard first, followed by Z-41-25-2.
Summary
Application: GPA-PV-1-25-2
Current Designation: Industrial
Requested Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 4.32
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 6, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 3, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 9-3.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 7079 E. Bell Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-PV-1-25-2,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2025 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 22191, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-PV-1-25-2. The 4.32 acres of
site located approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road
and Bell Road is designated as Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2025 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-2- Resolution
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
-3- Resolution
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
October 20, 2025
Application: GPA-PV-1-25-2
Applicant/Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings LLC
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner
of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
Acreage: 4.32 acres
Current Plan Designation: Industrial
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential
Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee Date: November 3, 2025
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD), proposes development that is a compatible transition between the single-
family residential development and storage facility on the west to the existing
commercial and proposed higher density residential development on the east
abutting Scottsdale Road.
2) The multifamily land use designation is appropriate as it will diversify the housing
types and density ranges in the area. This can help address the housing
shortage and alleviate the continuous need of housing in the area.
3) The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2, provides enhanced landscaping and
shade standards to make the proposed development a compatible addition to the
area.
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. The site is occupied by a two-story multi-tenant
commercial shopping center. Companion Case Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale
Crossing PUD) is a request to rezone the subject site from C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for multifamily residential.
Currently the site has a General Plan Land Use Map designation of Industrial. The
requested General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 15+ dwelling units
per acre will allow for additional housing choices in the area. Recent development
patterns suggest that there is a growing demand for housing choices in the Paradise
Valley Village. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map change will allow for the
continuation of these development trends across the greater area and will allow more
residential land uses to locate in proximity to employment areas, regional malls and
commercial centers such as the North Scottsdale Airpark, Kierland Commons and the
Promenade.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
NORTH
To the north, across Bell Road, is designated Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned and
the existing land use is the canal and multifamily residential.
SOUTH
To the south is designated Industrial and includes hotels and a self-service storage
warehouse.
WEST
To the west is designated Industrial and contains a self-service storage warehouse.
EAST
To the east, across 71st Street, is designated Industrial and contains a pharmacy/retail
use.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development
and redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
This request and the concurrent rezoning application for the Residences at
Scottsdale Crossing PUD promotes redevelopment of the site by allowing for an
increase in intensity at a scale compatible with surrounding properties in the
Staff Analysis
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Page 3
Kierland area. The development is located in a mixed-use corridor where nearby
properties are approved for multifamily residential or commercial. The project site
is also within a designated employment center known as the Desert
Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center. The concentration of people near
employment uses promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment will further diversify the
existing land use map designations in this part of the City by allowing multifamily
uses in a major employment center. This will help to provide diverse housing
opportunities in this area to both current and future residents.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new
development or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character
of the surrounding neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development
standards to prevent negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The companion PUD narrative incorporates standards that are compatible in
scale and intensity with the surrounding area and properties adjacent to the site.
The surrounding nearby properties to the south and east are zoned for
development of similar scale and intensity of the proposed PUD. Additionally, to
be sensitive in scale and character of nearby properties the PUD incorporates a
step down in height approach to the single-family residential properties on the
west.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-PV-1-25-2 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and policies of the General Plan and will result in a land use designation that will
continue to support surrounding uses while maximizing the property’s location in an
employment center. This proposed Minor General Plan Amendment request is
consistent with surrounding land uses and General Plan Land Use Map designations in
the general area.
Writer
Matteo Moric
October 20, 2025
Exhibits
Sketch Map (Colored)
Sketch Map (Black and White)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-PV-1-25-2 ACRES: 4.32 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: PARADISE VALLEY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area CAP
CAN
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac AL
Residential 15+ du/ac
WAY
68TH
Commercial
SCOTTSDALE RD
Industrial BELL
RD
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
69TH PL
Commercial / Commerce / Residential 15+ du/ac
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area CAP
CAN
AL
WAY
Residential 15+ du/ac
68TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
BELL
RD
69TH PL
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-PV-1-25-2 ACRES: 4.32 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: PARADISE VALLEY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
EXISTING:
Industrial ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
CAP
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Proposed Change Area CAN
AL
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
WAY
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Residential 15+ du/ac E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
68TH
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
SCOTTSDALE RD
Commercial
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
BELL
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Industrial
RD
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
69TH PL
E E E E
Commercial / Commerce Park / Residential 15+ du/ac
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 4.32 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area CAP
CAN
AL
WAY
Residential 15+ du/ac
68TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
BELL
RD
69TH PL
71ST ST
EN RD
KATHLE
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Date of VPC Meeting November 3, 2025
Request From Industrial
Request To Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-3
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and companion Planned
Unit Development (PUD) rezoning case. Mr. Moric stated these cases would be heard
together. Mr. Moric shared a map identifying the location and size of the subject site and
provided background and contextual information about the requests.
Mr. Moric noted that although the site is less than 10 acres in size, the exception
regarding any residential request in a designated industrial or commerce park area is
triggered, thus a minor General Plan Amendment is required. Mr. Moric stated the
findings and the staff recommendation of approval for the General Plan Amendment
request.
Mr. Moric then presented the zone change request and shared a map of the
surrounding zoning, identified the proposed development standards, the site plan,
building elevations and summarized the design guidelines. Mr. Moric also stated staff
received four letters of opposition regarding the proposal and noted the community
concerns. Mr. Moric summarized the staff findings and stated staff recommended
approval subject to stipulations. Mr. Moric then summed up the recommended
stipulations and the next steps for the proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 337
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, reminded the Committee that he presented this
case previously for information only. Mr. Wood stated the site is just west of the
intersection of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. Mr. Wood said immediately east of the
site was a CVS Pharmacy and at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road was a
previously approved PUD. Mr. Wood explained there was a mini-storage warehouse
site directly west of the subject site and next to that was a single-family residential
subdivision. Mr. Wood noted some additional context that hotels were located south of
the subject site, and further south was the Kierland area and east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood said one of the questions which was raised at the previous meeting was
regarding 71st Street and he reminded the Committee that it is a private drive shared by
all the property owners that are adjacent to it and Mr. Wood emphasized it is not a city
street. Mr. Wood said all the traffic from the proposal moves off 71st Street and
explained the movement and median breaks in the area. Mr. Wood said the only reason
people would travel south on 71st Street is if they are going to the gas station or
traveling south down Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said the site was never built as
industrial but that is what the General Plan is showing it designated as, so they are now
requesting a General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Residential 15+ dwelling units
per acre and a rezone from C-2 to PUD. Mr. Wood stated the conceptual site plan
proposes 315 dwelling units. Mr. Wood explained he loved the site plan and building
elevations as most recent developments seem to be boxes and this has lots of
movement and articulation to create visual interest in the architecture which will create a
special place. Mr. Wood said it would have a wrap parking structure, where the units
wrap around the structure and there would be parking on each floor. Mr. Wood indicated
he lives in Optima Camelback in the Old Town Scottsdale area, where the car parking is
underground and everything must come up and down such as groceries. Mr. Wood said
the building utilizes a step-down approach for the height to reduce as it moves west
closer to the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood shared information related to nearby sites such as the Manor Scottsdale at
13220 North Scottsdale Road, which was the old L.A. Fitness site where they proposed
a four- and five-story development next to single family residences. Mr. Wood explained
that they initially had lots of opposition but had worked with neighbors to ensure they
were satisfied as they had no opposition at the hearing.
Mr. Wood showed another site which was the Kierland II Office Building at 16260 North
71st Street which was 56 feet tall from the single-family residential property lines 160
feet away, and 70 feet tall, 220 feet away from the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood explained the proposal is lushly landscaped, with landscaping between the
curb and sidewalk, and between the sidewalk and the building. Mr. Wood said
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 338
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
everything has visual interest on the site plan and nothing is the same. Mr. Wood added
they are proposing balconies which are inverted and exterior oriented.
Mr. Wood then showed several conceptual renderings. Mr. Wood said the current C-2
zoning allowed approximately 325 more uses than the proposed multifamily residences.
Mr. Wood also shared a table breaking out the trips generated from the existing C-2
zoning to the proposed PUD zoning. Mr. Wood summed up that the proposal would
have far less traffic than the existing zoning allowed. Mr. Wood said the good news is
traffic can’t get to the single-family residences to the west so there would be no cut-
through traffic there.
Mr. Wood asked not to have the staff recommended signage stipulations and to delete
those.
Mr. Wood said they worked very closely with the neighborhood to the west. Mr. Wood
showed a community outreach map which identified where support came from. Mr.
Wood said they received 170 letters in support, 120 statements of support (verbal) and
127 neutral statements. Mr. Wood then shared a map showing which properties had
previously opposed the project but were actively collaborating towards screening
solutions, and those previously opposed and non-responsive.
Questions from Committee
Robert Goodhue asked why did the applicant not want to comply with the City of
Phoenix Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wood said there were two ways to have signs approved
with one being through the PUD rezone process and the other was to go through a
Comprehensive Sign Package application. Mr. Wood said it will take a lot of extra time
and would typically get approved unless they do something new and stupid. Mr.
Goodhue said normally developers go through the Comprehensive Sign process.
Diane Peterson had concerns with the sewer and traffic. Ms. Peterson was concerned
with the cumulative effect of building after building, “Optima after Optima”. Ms. Peterson
expressed concern with traffic going south on Scottsdale Road and said those who live
just south believed traffic is a nightmare. Ms. Peterson shared concerns about the
sewer work and capacity. Mr. Wood replied that the project’s civil engineer worked with
the City Water Services Division and there was enough sewer capacity. Ms. Peterson
added there are few egresses that go through Scottsdale Road and may not go through
the neighborhood on the west but would travel through other neighborhoods. Mr. Wood
said this project is so far north and near the freeway.
Larisa Balderrama asked about the height of the proposed building at the corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road and asked if it would be constructed. Mr. Wood noted it
was going to be 12 stories and that it would be built. Ms. Balderrama asked questions
about traffic movement and thought there may be some challenges to turn. Mr. Wood
stated there was not enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 339
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Roy Wise noted he often travels north on Scottsdale Road and thinks traffic will back up
on Scottsdale Road and is concerned that to turn left on Bell Road will be impossible.
Mr. Wise thought turning right on Bell Road and traveling to the left turn lane to turn left
on Scottsdale Road will be a challenge. Marina Stender, the applicant’s traffic engineer
for the project, explained how trips will be generated from the proposal. Ms. Stender
stated the project would not warrant a traffic signal, otherwise, a traffic signal study
would have to be requested.
Ms. Peterson asked if the cumulative effect of all the buildings around the project were
taken into consideration. Ms. Stender said as traffic engineers they are required to
analyze all existing developments and approved development and layer their trips on
top of it to see how it affects the roadway network and the capacity of the roadway. Ms.
Stender noted that the project did not trigger a full traffic study for the City of Phoenix.
Ms. Stender said the existing right and left turn lane on Bell Road was already built
longer than the minimum required.
Anna Sepic asked for clarity regarding the traffic analysis and if it included the potential
C-2 uses which did not exist. Ms. Stender said they did the analysis on both current
and potential C-2 uses.
Patrice Marcolla asked about the traffic study and wondered why it did not trigger a
traffic impact analysis. Ms. Stender said a full traffic impact analysis is not required.
Vice Chair Amber Sommer asked if the lot at the corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road was taken into account for the traffic study. Ms. Sepic stated that 251 units are to
come in at the corner. Ms. Stender said with that proposed project they would need to
do their own traffic study. Ms. Stender said currently that corner property is empty and
not generating any existing trips.
Robert Gubser asked if they recall if the project at Scottsdale Road and Bell Road will
use 71st Street as its main access. Mr. Wood said that 71st Street would be that
project’s secondary access and there would be two access points.
Ms. Sepic asked about the proposed zoning and if they were asking for a C-2 or PUD
and asked what the density is. Mr. Wood said the density is 73 dwelling units per acre
with 315 units.
Ms. Marcolla said the ITE traffic study does not seem specific to this site. Ms. Stender
said the ITE is the bible for traffic studies and there are different categories for studies.
Ms. Marcolla said this is specific for the ITE on all streets incoming and outgoing.
Mr. Wood said that the Street Transportation Department said before a site plan is
approved it would require a full Traffic Impact Study. Mr. Wood said they followed the
Street Transportation Department’s instruction.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 340
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
Ms. Peterson asked if before site approval they will need to do a full traffic study. Mr.
Wood said yes.
Mr. Goodhue explained the applicant is going through a rezoning to approve the use
and once the use is approved their next step is to go through the site planning approval
process. Mr. Goodhue said the site plan comes after it is at the City Council level. Mr.
Goodhue stated in this case when looking at trip generation, the project will still need to
go through the TIA before site plan approval. Mr. Wood said after and if the proposal
gets Council approval, the applicant will need to get preliminary and final site plan
approval.
Ms. Marcolla wanted to know if there was an initial or historic traffic study for the site.
Mr. Wood was not certain but said the study would have been many years ago for a
two-story shopping center.
Kate Bauer said 1,300 residential units were being built near Mayo on the south side of
the 101 and provided information that there currently was 10.5% vacancy rate. Ms.
Bauer noted a lot of new apartments were coming and if the applicant saw a lot of
demand. Mr. Wood said he was not certain about the marketing, but his client was
planning to spend $80 to 90 million on which the lender would need to feel comfortable.
Justin Westfall, with Fifield Companies, said there were many units delivered across
the north Scottsdale and Phoenix market and there is a tremendous amount of job
growth occurring in the area. Mr. Westfall stated these include medical jobs, new
headquarters, Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) associated jobs and
with the combination of the projected job growth along with the housing shortage there
is a high demand for housing.
Ms. Peterson said her thought of the village concept is to have people live and work in
each village. Ms. Peterson was concerned these units would not be affordable and this
is an issue. Ms. Peterson added there is a shortage of housing for people who cannot
afford to live at the Optima’s such as teachers and fire fighters. Mr. Westfall said they
would provide a range from studios to three-bedroom units and most of the units would
be studios and one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there would be a variety of housing
options and would not be as expensive as Optima projects. Ms. Peterson also asked
about units for families who need more than one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there were
also two- and three-bedroom units. Mr. Westfall said there would be different price
points depending on where the units are located in the building.
Mr. Goodhue said when the Mayo Hospital was coming into the City of Phoenix, City
staff had worked with developers in that area and there was astronomical growth and
this project could help accommodate people living close to their place of employment.
Mr. Wood said he recently worked on a rezoning case of 240 acres in the Paradise
Ridge area and it anticipates 5 to 6 million square feet of additional job generation and
said some construction started but it probably will be a 20-year build out. Mr. Wood
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 341
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
added that investors and lenders will need to be satisfied the project will work, otherwise
it would not be built.
Ms. Baldarrama asked if the units will be allowed to be used for short-term rentals. Mr.
Westfall noted that for most rentals of their properties are for a minimum of 12 to 18
months. Mr. Westfall said there is not usually a sublease situation where people can
rent the units as Airbnb’s.
Ms. Baldarrama was concerned with housing shortages due to these short-term
rentals. Mr. Wood stated his developer clients do not usually allow Airbnb’s as they are
usually disruptive for other resident tenants.
Vice Chair Sommer noted the previous concern of privacy at the information meeting
and was wondering what they’d do to accommodate the west side residential neighbors.
Mr. Wood said they had reached an agreement with a few of the neighbors to raise
walls and install trees to alleviate concerns with privacy.
Mr. Gubser asked about pedestrian accessibility and if there was access on 71st
Street. Mr. Wood said there were sidewalks along 71st Street and there was a
detached sidewalk along Bell Road.
Mr. Gubser questioned if there was a pull-out for rideshares on 71st Street as he was
concerned about cars stacking. Mr. Westfall noted there was a porte-cochere where
rideshares could be pulled onto the site for drop-offs.
Public Comments
None.
Applicant Response
None.
Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.
Committee Member Robert Gubser made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-
PV-1-25-2. Committee Member Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.
VOTE:
9-3; motion to approve GPA-PV-1-25-2 passes with Committee members Franks,
Goodhue, Gubser, Hamra, Marcolla, Schmidt, Sepic, Wise and Sommer in favor;
Committee members Balderrama, Bauer, and Peterson in opposition.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 342
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 6, 2025
Request From Industrial
Request To Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Rezoning cases and noted they were for informational purposes
only at this time. Mr. Moric then introduced the applicant and representative.
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, provided the context of the area surrounding the
proposal. Mr. Wood reminded the Committee he had been in front of them several years
prior for a case at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said it was
for a high-rise apartment project that will break ground in 2026 with heights of up to 156
feet. Mr. Wood noted next to the subject site on the east is a CVS Pharmacy, to the
west is single-family subdivision, and ministorage and hotels are located to the south.
Mr. Wood added that further south is the Kierland area and to the east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood stated the subject site is currently zoned C-2 and they are proposing to
rezone to a PUD. Mr. Wood added the general plan designates the site as Industrial.
Mr. Wood showed the conceptual site plan which shows the proposed buildings facing
Bell Road and 71st Street. Mr. Wood indicated 71st Street is a private street which has
an easement to Bell Road. Mr. Wood explained how the project has its residential units
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 343
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2 - Information Only
wrap around the parking structure and noted the parking structure is as tall as the rest
of the building.
Mr. Wood stated they had been working with the neighboring residents to the west.
Mr. Wood added the conceptual plan shows movement and depth at the grade level.
Mr. Wood said there was a step-down design. Mr. Wood said the standard for the step
back design was created for the old LA Fitness site south of Kierland, where single-
family homes were on two sides and the design was where this 4-story convention was
used with similar distances to the balconies. Mr. Wood said this was used as the
guideline for the 4-story portion of the building to the property line of the single-family
residences.
Mr. Wood said staff supported lush landscaping and because the proposal has the
depth it enhances the landscape along Bell Road and as the landscaping circulates the
building itself. Mr. Wood complimented the architecture and said there was a lot of
visual interest in items such as the roofline and types of balconies including recessed
balconies. Mr. Wood added that the proposed building does not have a long boring
façade. Mr. Wood said that most developers want to take advantage of every square
foot of the interior and in this case to do more quality design they’ve included the
recessed balconies which add shade and an architectural element.
Mr. Wood stated 71st Street is the entry into the parking structure and the building
lobby. Mr. Wood shared the renderings and noted there are a tremendous number of
amenities and the parking structure would be screened and the roof becomes the
location for a pool, club house, and amenity area. Mr. Wood showed how the building
steps down as you move from east to west.
Mr. Wood indicated the site is being down zoned from C-2 which he said allows many
more uses that are typically high traffic generators. Mr. Wood shared trip generation
numbers and noted that there is no vehicular connection with this project and the
subdivision to the west. Mr. Wood added they had worked closely with the neighbors.
Questions from Committee
Ms. Diane Peterson asked about the traffic study and was wondering about traffic
traveling to and from Scottsdale and traffic going down 71st Street through other
neighborhoods which do not have an entrance on Bell Road. Mr. Wood said the traffic
study shows the use was a low traffic generator. Ms. Peterson was more concerned
with the cumulative effect of the traffic and believes this is changing the nature of some
of the neighborhoods. Mr. Wood reinforced they were a smaller traffic generator than C-
2 zoning.
Mr. Robert Goodhue said he goes to the CVS next to the subject site periodically and
of all times he has driven through the area and noted there were not many cars
traveling and thought the area at times is deserted. Mr. Goodhue asked if the neighbors
to the west next to the mini storage supported the project. Mr. Wood stated the single-
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 344
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2 - Information Only
family neighbors to the west had not shared their support yet, however, they had
worked with the neighbors very closely. Mr. Wood indicated they had worked on sight
line studies and were discussing landscaping. Mr. Wood said usually privacy is more of
an issue than the height of the building and they are trying to work with the neighbors on
this matter. Mr. Goodhue said he hoped they could satisfy concerned neighbors.
Ms. Patrice Marcolla said it is nice to see redevelopment if the spaces are not being
used and was wondering why the commercial spaces of the subject site are not being
used. Mr. Wood said the seller is not renewing leases.
Chair Anita Mortensen asked if parking is all on one level. Mr. Wood responded that
parking is on each level.
Ms. Peterson said she is concerned with the major exit from the building on an
easement which is shared by many property owners.
Chair Mortensen expressed some concerns that were raised after the meeting
associated with the multi-story building proposed at the corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road. Chair Mortensen added that the storage building to the west was not very
wide and not just one or two individuals would be concerned about height. Chair
Mortensen thought four-stories facing the single-family residences would be an issue
even if landscaping and buffers were provided in the backyards. Mr. Wood said the
single-family properties to the west were separated by about one-half a football field
away from the proposed four-story portion of the building.
Ms. Jennifer Hall asked if there was a drop-off or pick-up area for someone wanting to
use rideshare. Mr. Wood showed where on the plans there would be space for a drop
off near 71st Street. Ms. Hall asked if there was only one way into the project. Mr. Wood
said the other driveway on the west side of the site does not punch through.
Vice Chair Sommers asked about the landscaping on the west side. Kevin Farrell with
Fifield Companies noted the plants will be twenty to thirty feet tall when transported.
Chair Mortensen asked what type of trees would be planted. Mr. Wood said they had
not figured out the exact species of the plant material palette.
Ms. Hall asked about the setbacks and had concerns as a lot of buildings are going up
in the Kierland area with the buildings being built so close to the road. Mr. Wood said
this was a legitimate concern, however, he felt they addressed this through detached
sidewalks, landscape between sidewalk and the buildings and there is an open area
which breaks up the building along the street fronts.
Ms. Regina Schmidt said screening trees is the only way to get privacy. Mr. Wood
said they were working with the neighbors to help address privacy issues.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 345
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-PV-1-25-2 - Information Only
Mr. Daniel Mazza felt this was a well-done project and was impressed with the
proposed wrap shielding the parking areas.
Ms. Peterson asked about the reaction of Jackson’s Car Wash. Mr. Wood said the car
wash loves the proposal as 71st Street is an easement that everyone has a right to use.
Ms. Marcolla asked about guest parking and Maggie Dellow with the applicant said it
is at 0.5 space per required vehicle parking. Mr. Wood added that it is a gated parking
structure.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 346
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-PV-1-25-2 (Companion Case Z-41-25-2)
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale
Road and Bell Road
From: Industrial
To: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 4.32
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 10/6/2025 Information only.
Paradise Valley 11/3/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-3.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve GPA-PV-1-25-2, per the
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD),
proposes development that is a compatible transition between the single-family residential
development and storage facility on the west to the existing commercial and proposed
higher density residential development on the east abutting Scottsdale Road.
2. The multifamily land use designation is appropriate as it will diversify the housing types
and density ranges in the area. This can help address the housing shortage and alleviate
the continuous need of housing in the area.
3. The companion rezoning case, Z-41-25-2, provides enhanced landscaping and shade
standards to make the proposed development a compatible addition to the area.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-41-25-2
(Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD) - Approximately 660 Feet West of the
Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road (Ordinance G-7475) -
District 2
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-41-25-
2 and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow multifamily residential and commercial uses. This is a
companion case to GPA-PV-1-25-2 and must be heard following GPA-PV-1-25-2.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 4.32
Proposal: Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Applicant: Fifield Companies
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 6, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 3, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with
deletions, by a vote of 7-5.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 7079 E. Bell Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-41-25-2) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.32-acre site located at approximately 660
feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road in a portion of
Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) 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 Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent
with the Development Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by
the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph
“Within the outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm
trees may count towards required shade" and replace it with “Shade may
be achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update
the number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.”
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-41-25-2
WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE
GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL NO. 1
PARCEL A, OF PRINCESS CROSSING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
RECORDED IN BOOK 445 OF MAPS, PAGE 18.
PARCEL NO. 2
PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY, PROJECT FACILITIES
AND ROADWAY PROVIDING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS UPON,
ACROSS, OVER AND UNDER REAL PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS THE “INTERNAL
ROADWAY” DESCRIBED AND GRANTED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 96-0834703 AND
AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 97-0365804 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL NO. 3
A PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VEHICULAR,
PEDESTRIAN, UTILITY AND OTHER INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM THE
ZENITH PROPERTIES, AS CREATED IN CROSS EASEMENT RECORDED IN
DOCUMENT NO. 1997-0301868 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-41-25-2
(Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD)
October 26, 2025
Paradise Valley Village Planning November 3, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 4, 2025
Request From: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (4.32 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (4.32
acres)
Proposal: To allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the
southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings LLC
Applicant: Fifield Companies
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Industrial
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Pending (GPA-PV-1-25-2): Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre
Major Width varies from 55-foot to
Bell Road
Arterial 67.29-foot south half street
Street Map Classification
Local Street
71st Street 20-foot west half street
(Private)
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to employment
centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation alternatives exist.
The proposal will add to the mix of housing types within the immediate area, which is a
node of commercial activity, and will be located within a designated employment center.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
General Plan Conformity
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should be designed to included convenient bicycle parking.
The PUD includes bicycle parking for both residents and guests. The PUD also includes
other bicycle infrastructure, including electric bicycle charging and a bicycle repair station,
in order to support alternative modes of transportation.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPILE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The PUD proposes standards that integrate trees and shade in the design, including
enhanced landscaping around the perimeter of the site, shaded detached sidewalks, and
additional outdoor open space areas.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Desert Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center – See Background Item. No. 2.
Shade Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 11.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 12.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 13.
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 14.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 15.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 16.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan – See Background Item No. 17.
Conservation Measures for New Development - See Background Item No.18
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Commercial and office C-2
North (across Bell
Canal and multifamily residential R1-14 and R-3A
Road)
South Self-service storage warehouse and hotel IND. PK. and C-2
West Self-service storage warehouse IND. PK
East (across 71st
Retail C-2
Street)
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 4.32-acre site located approximately 660 feet west
of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. The request is to
rezone from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow multifamily residential and commercial uses.
2. Desert Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center
The subject site falls within the boundaries of the City of Phoenix designated
employment center. The Desert Ridge/Kierland employment center extends
east from 36th Street to Scottsdale Road between Deer Valley Road and the
Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal, including the area from 64th Street to
Scottsdale Road between the CAP canal and Acoma Drive.
Major Employment Centers Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Industrial.
The proposal is inconsistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map
designation, and although the site is less than 10 acres in size, the exception
regarding any residential request in a designated industrial or commerce park
area is triggered; thus, a minor General Plan Amendment is required. A
concurrent minor General Plan Amendment case, GPA-PV-1-25-2, is proposed
to change the General Plan Land Use Map designation to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre. The proposed PUD zoning is consistent with the
proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation.
The General Plan Land Use Map designation to the north of the site is
Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned. To the west, south, and east of the site
is designated as Industrial.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
GPA-PV-1-25-2 Sketch Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES
4. To the north, across Bell Road, is the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal
zoned R1-14 (One-Family Residence) and multifamily residential zoned R-3A
(Multifamily Residence District). To the west is a self-service storage
warehouse zoned IND.PK. (Industrial Park) and a single-family subdivision
zoned R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District). To the south is a self-service
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
storage warehouse zoned IND.PK (Industrial Park) and hotels zoned C-2
(Intermediate Commercial). To the east, across 71st Street, is a retail
business zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial).
Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
PROPOSAL
5. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned
Unit Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is
superior to that produced by conventional zoning districts and design
guidelines. Using a collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant
authors and proposes standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context
of a site on a case-by-case basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is
silent on a requirement, the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be
applied.
6. The PUD proposes standards that support the vision of a well-landscaped and
more pedestrian friendly multifamily residential development with a detached
sidewalk along Bell Road, a new sidewalk along 71st Street, shading, and
pedestrian paths.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
The building ranges from four to seven-stories and utilizes a stepdown
approach to promote more quality architecture and help reduce impacts to the
single-family residences on the west side of the development. The building
wraps around a parking structure which serves the residents and guests
further reducing the negative impacts of vehicular parking by minimizing the
visibility of the vehicles and parking garage. There also is a minimum 15
percent of the total gross site area consisting of common open space including
amenities such as a club room, yoga and fitness center, dog run/park, walking
path, swimming pool, etc.
7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as
described in the attached PUD Development Narrative. The proposed
standards were designed to allow for a multifamily development that provides
enhanced architecture, landscaping and a more pedestrian-friendly
environment which is sensitive to the surrounding uses.
List of Uses
The Development Narrative proposes a number of permitted uses. The
proposed uses consist of the permitted C-2 zoning uses found in Section 623
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, with many prohibited uses. Additionally,
multifamily residential is permitted with a maximum of 315 residential dwelling
units.
The Development Narrative also proposes restricting certain uses that are
inconsistent with the PUD's vision of fostering a walkable environment for both
current and future residents in the surrounding area such as auto title loan
establishments, retail of automobile parts and supplies, gas stations, hospitals,
single-family residential, automobile service stations, veterinarian hospitals
and offices, and window glass installation shop.
8. Development Standards
The following is a table of proposed development standards for the project.
a. Density (Maximum) 315 Dwelling Units
73 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre
b. Minimum Lot Width/Depth No Minimum
c. Minimum Building Setbacks
North (Bell Road) 15 feet from Property Line
West (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
East (71st Street) 20 feet from Back of Curb
South (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
d. Building Height (Maximum) 83 feet
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
e. Building Height Restrictions
Zone 1: Within 140 feet of R1- 0 feet
8 Zoning District Boundary
Zone 2: 140 to 178 feet from 46 feet
R1-8 Zoning District Boundary
Zone 3: 178 to 305 feet from 58 feet
R1-8 Zoning District Boundary
Zone 4: 305 to 520 feet from 83 feet
R1-8 Zoning District Boundary
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 65% of Total Net Site Area
The PUD provides a step back design approach of the building to reduce the
sight visibility into the yards of the single-family residential neighborhood to the
west of this proposed development. As the building gets closer to the R1-8
single-family zoned properties the proposed building gets lower in height. The
maximum height of the building is 83 feet which is at the east end of the site.
This design approach also provides more variation and visual interest in the
architectural design of the building.
Source: Applicant’s PUD Narrative
Streetscape Standards
The streetscape standards exceed the requirements of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Bell Road Detached Sidewalk Width: 6 feet
Landscape Strip: Minimum 10 feet
landscape area between back of
curb and detached sidewalk.
Planting Standards: Minimum 2-inch
caliper trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings on
both sides of the sidewalk. Minimum
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree.
Minimum of 75% live coverage.
Sidewalk Tree Shade Coverage:
75%
71st Street (Private) Attached Sidewalk Width: 6 feet
Sidewalk Tree Shade Coverage:
75%
Minimum Landscape Standards
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
(Perimeter)
North (Bell Road) 15 feet from Property Line
West (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
East (71st Street) 20 feet from Back of Curb
South (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
North (Bell Road) Landscaping Standards:
Minimum 2-inch caliper trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings. Minimum five
5-gallon shrubs per tree. Minimum of
75% live coverage.
West (Perimeter) Landscaping Standards:
Minimum 2-inch caliper trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings. Minimum five
5-gallon shrubs per tree. Minimum of
50% live coverage.
Pedestrian Walk: A minimum 5-foot-
wide pedestrian walk shall be
located within the landscape setback
for pedestrian circulation.
East (71st Street) Landscaping Standards:
Minimum 2-inch caliper trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings. Minimum five
5-gallon shrubs per tree. Minimum of
50% live coverage.
South (Perimeter) Landscaping Standards: Minimum 2-
inch caliper trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings.
Minimum five 5-gallon shrubs per
tree. Minimum of 50% live coverage.
Pedestrian Walk: A minimum 5-foot-
wide pedestrian walk shall be
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
located within the landscape setback
for pedestrian circulation.
Common Open Space Minimum 15%
Parking Standards
The following table summarizes the parking standards. The number of the
vehicle parking spaces is different than the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
requirement of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit of any size unit. Electric vehicle,
bicycle parking and a drop-off/pick-up location are above what is required by
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance standards.
Minimum Parking Standards
Residents
Studio 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit
1-Bed & 2-Bed 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
3-Bed 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit
Unreserved Parking 0.5 spaces per required parking
space
Electric Vehicle Parking 5% EV Installed
5% EV Capable
Bicycle Parking 0.25 spaces per total dwelling unit,
maximum 50 spaces
0.05 guest spaces per total dwelling
unit, maximum 50 spaces
Drop-Off/Pick-Up A drop-off/pick-up area for residents
and guests shall be provided near
the entrance of the parking garage.
Fences/Walls
The PUD notes fences and walls shall comply with the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, except a new site wall is not required to be constructed along the
west or south property lines when an adjacent property’s site wall or building
wall is located within 15 feet of the property line.
Shade
The PUD shade standards are to provide a minimum of 75 percent for all
public sidewalks, 75 percent for private pathways, and 50 percent for all
private resident amenity areas. This will encourage shade which goes above
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance requirements. Per Stipulation No. 1.b, shade
may be achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
9. Design Guidelines
To ensure quality building and design many guidelines have been
incorporated within the PUD. These guidelines include utilizing a variety of
materials; a specific color palette; providing limitations on the length of blank
walls; adding an art element; requiring private balconies and patios for 80
percent of the units; and screening of mechanical and electrical equipment,
and the parking garage.
The design of the building shows a step-down approach from east to west
providing additional interest to the architecture and sensitivity by providing
privacy for the neighboring residential properties.
The project will include private amenities for its residents. These amenities
may include a club room, yoga and fitness center, outdoor seating area(s),
dog run/park, yoga/event lawn, secured resident walking path, and a
swimming pool and/or spa with a lounge deck, seating node(s) and an activity
lawn.
10. Signs
All signage shall comply with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705.
A Comprehensive Sign Plan may be processed in accordance with Section
705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance. Stipulation Nos. 1.c and 1.e require that
signs be in compliance with the Sign Section of the Zoning Ordinance, any
variations will need to go through the standard process.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
11. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix
Plan. The Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage
throughout the City to improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can
address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran
vegetation, and prevent health complications related to prolonged exposure to
heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan provides numerous strategies to increase
shade including expanding and maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree
code enforcement, and developing shade stipulations in rezoning cases. The
Development Narrative requires a minimum 75 percent shade on all public
sidewalks, enhanced shade on internal pathways, and larger tree sizes within
the landscape areas between the back of curb and sidewalk. These standards
exceed the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements.
12. 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 promote safety
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
and connectivity for all users, the PUD proposes standards of a detached
sidewalk along Bell Road and wider sidewalks and pedestrian paths. Also
there is a pedestrian transit link being provided which is an 8-foot-wide
pedestrian pathway providing direct access between the building and the
transit bus pad and this path will be shaded and consist of decorative
materials.
13. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014
to guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure.
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and
long-term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety
of Destinations. The Development Narrative includes bicycle and electric
bicycle parking provisions, and a bicycle repair “fix it station” in the
development.
14. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for additional housing units. The proposed development supports the
Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by
contributing to a variety housing types that will address the supply shortage at
a more rapid pace while using underutilized land in a more sustainable
fashion.
15. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero-waste city, as part of the City’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial,
and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The PUD narrative
states recycling services will be provided for tenants.
16. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire
for better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in
vehicle operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the
public are signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
many automobile manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully
electric offerings within the coming decade. This Plan contains policy
initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled with more EVs, charging
infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a roadmap for a five-step
plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by
2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of electric vehicles
through workplace, business, and multifamily charging infrastructure
recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV charging
infrastructure. The Development Narrative contains standards for a minimum
of five percent of the required vehicle parking spaces to be EV Installed
infrastructure and five percent EV Capable Infrastructure, and 10 percent of
the required bicycle parking spaces to include standard electrical receptacles
for electric bicycle charging capabilities.
17. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan.
The Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse
gas emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and
community activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This
plan contains policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation,
waste management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2
(Water), Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix
Green Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative
Stormwater Management to benefit the environment, promote water
conservation, reduce urban heat, improve the public health, and create
additional green spaces. This goal is addressed in the Design Guidelines
section of the PUD Narrative which requires green infrastructure techniques
for stormwater management be implemented.
18. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures
for New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution
addresses the future water consumption of new development to support one
of the City’s Five Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to -
Build the Sustainable Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New
Development policy includes direction to develop standards for consideration
as stipulations for all rezoning cases that will address best practices related to
water usage in nine specific categories. This is addressed in the Design
Guidelines and Sustainability sections of the PUD Narrative. Stipulation No.
1.d addresses a discrepancy in the Narrative to revise the number of years to
participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup program.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
19. At the time the staff report was written, staff received four letters in opposition
to the project. Concerns include a loss of privacy and sense of security, the
proposal being out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and its impacts
on property values.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
20. City of Scottsdale Aviation Department
The City of Scottsdale Aviation Department requested the airport disclosure
stipulation, the FAA Form 7460 with an FAA response of “No Hazard
Determination”, and have the developer grant and record an avigation
easement for the site. These requests are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2
through 4.
21. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation Department requested the following:
• An eight-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway consisting of decorative
material such as brick, pavers or alternative material providing a direct
pedestrian linkage to the adjacent transit stop.
• All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way be
undergrounded.
• That all streets within and adjacent to the development, be constructed
with all required elements, including meeting ADA requirements.
These are addressed within the PUD Narrative and in Stipulation Nos. 5 and
6.
OTHER
22. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically
sensitive. If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office
determines the site and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if
no previous archaeological projects have been conducted within this project
area, it is recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area
be conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist
must make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix
Archaeologist. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
construction, all ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius
of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified
immediately and allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7 through 9.
23. 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
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
has been added to require the form be completed and submitted prior to final
site plan approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
24. 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 proposed General Plan Land
Use Map designation in companion case GPA-PV-1-25-2 and is compatible
with the transitioning land use pattern in the surrounding area.
2. The proposed development will add to the mix of housing options within the
Desert Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that support
efforts from various plans and initiatives, including the Shade Phoenix Plan,
the Complete Streets Guiding Principles, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master
Plan, the Housing Phoenix Plan, Zero Waste PHX, the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan, and the Phoenix Climate Action Plan.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent
with the Development Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by
the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph
“Within the outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm trees
may count towards required shade" and replace it with “Shade may be
achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Pages 19, F1: Permitted Signs: Delete all and replace with “All signage shall
comply with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705. A
Comprehensive Sign Plan may be processed in accordance with Section
705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance.”
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
d. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update
the number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.”
e. Exhibit 14: Remove the exhibit on the last page titled “Conceptual Signage
Plan”.
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior
to final site plan approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded,
adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with the affected
utility companies for their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. 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.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Matteo Moric
October 26, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped October 20, 2025
Conceptual Elevations date stamped October 20, 2025 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped October 20, 2025
Community Correspondence (10 pages)
Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD Development Narrative date stamped October
20, 2025
R1-18
R-3A*
Z-61-96
R1-14 C-2*
Z-60-96
SCOTTSDALE
C-2*
BELL Z-70-97
RD
CITY OF
LPS RD
PHE
69TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
ST
HW PUD*
AY
71ST Z-12-21
68T LN ST
KELTON
R1-8 IND.PK.* C-2*
Z-139-86
Z-82-79 Z-167-87
KINGS AV E
CP/GCP PCD*
EN RD Z-11-C-75
KATHLE
L
69TH P
¯ Miles
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
GREENWAY RD
Z-41-25-2
0 0.03 0.06 0.12
THUNDERBIRD RD
CACTUS RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE SHEA BLVD
SCOTTSDALE RD
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
16TH ST 40TH ST
24TH ST TATUM BLVD
32ND ST 56TH ST
64TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
FROM: C-2 ( 4.32 ac.)
DATE:
4/24/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-41-25-2 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
PUD ( 4.32 ac.)
4.32 Acres QS 36-44 M-12
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
C-2 62 75
PUD 315 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 545
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-41-25-2.aprx
R1-18
R-3A*
Z-61-96
R1-14 C-2*
Z-60-96
SCOTTSDALE
C-2*
BELL Z-70-97
RD
CITY OF
LPS RD
PHE
69TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
ST
HW PUD*
AY
71ST Z-12-21
68T LN ST
KELTON
R1-8 IND.PK.* C-2*
Z-139-86
Z-82-79 Z-167-87
KINGS AV E
CP/GCP PCD*
EN RD Z-11-C-75
KATHLE
L
69TH P
¯ Miles
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
GREENWAY RD
Z-41-25-2
0 0.03 0.06 0.12
THUNDERBIRD RD
CACTUS RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE SHEA BLVD
SCOTTSDALE RD
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
16TH ST 40TH ST
24TH ST TATUM BLVD
32ND ST 56TH ST
64TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
FROM: C-2 ( 4.32 ac.)
DATE:
4/24/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-41-25-2 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
PUD ( 4.32 ac.)
4.32 Acres QS 36-44 M-12
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
C-2 62 75
PUD 315 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 546
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-41-25-2.aprx
LOT COVERAGE SITE AREA
MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE: 75% ASSESSOR PARCEL # APN 215-43-323
PROVIDED: 65%
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 102,003 SF TOTAL SITE GROSS AREA ±188,693 SF, ± 4.32 AC
BUILDING FOOTPRINT ÷ NET LOT SF TOTAL SITE NET AREA ±156,928 SF, ± 3.603 AC
(102,003 SF ÷ 156,928 SF = 65%)
OPEN SPACE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MINIMUM REQUIRED: 5% OF GROSS AREA THIS PROJECT IS A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT
(0.05 x 188,693 SF = 9,435 SF) THE SWC OF BELL ROAD AND 71ST STREET. PROJECT
C.A.P PROPOSED: 15% OF GROSS AREA CONSISTS OF 315 UNITS ON 4.32 GROSS ACRES. BUILDING
. CA (0.15 x 188,693 SF = 28,303 SF) WILL CONSIST OF MAX. 7 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL WRAPPING
N AL 6 LEVELS OF PARKING. UNITS CONSIST OF STUDIO,
1-BEDROOM, 2-BEDROOM, AND 3-BEDROOM UNITS.
PARKING ( 8.5' X 18' )
GENERAL BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS:
REQUIRED PARKING: PROPOSED USE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCIES:
S STUDIO 1.3 P.S./D.U. RESIDENTIAL: R-2 TYPE I/IIIA CONSTRUCTION
1 1BR/1BA 1.5 P.S./D.U PARKING STRUCTURE: S-2 TYPE I CONSTRUCTION
2 2BR/2BA 1.5 P.S./D.U. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13
BELL 3 3BR/2BA 2.0 P.S./D.U.
ZONING
ASDASD
ROA
EXISTING D EXISTING: C-2 Z-70-97/ Z-139-86 / Z-167-87
16 REQUIRED UNRESERVED PARKING:
BUS PROPOSED: PUD
STOP UNRESERVED 0.5 P.S. PER REQUIRED P.S. VILLAGE: PARADISE VALLEY
ASDASD
DENSITY
8'-0" SIDEWALK EASEMENT ACCESSIBLE - REQUIRED PARKING:
TO BE PROVIDED PUD
FRONT . NDSC RESERVED 0.02 P.S./D.U. MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY 75 DU/AC (GROSS)
15'-0 A
" 10'-0 1 .U.E SETB PE UNRESERVED 0.02 P.S./D.U. PUD ACREAGE:
8 " ACK
ILDIN
G 4.332 AC (GROSS)
8' P SETB
(+56'-0")
2A 5-STORY 1B ACK PROPOSED 315 D.U. 73 D.U. / AC (GROSS)
RESIDENTIAL 13 6'-0
" 15' LA 15' BU
UP
1K 8'-0 PROVIDED EV PARKING:
12 49'-10" " EXISTING LOW
ELEC. WALL TO BE EV PARKING 5% : 0.05 PER PROVIDED P.S.
UP
S NORTH COURT REMOVED BUILDING HEIGHT
EV READY PARKING 5%: 0.05 PER PROVIDED P.S.
15'-0 2 MAXIMUM ALLOWED: 85'
(Open Space) 8 " 15'-0
REAR
TRASH 2C
5-STORY (+56'-0") " PROPOSED: (7 STORIES) ±83'
FRONT
3 COMPACTOR 1B 1B
RESIDENTIAL 13
BICYCLE PARKING: BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITION:
REAR FRONT EAST COURT
(Open Space) REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING: 0.25 P.S. PER UNIT, "THE VERTICAL DISTANCE MEASURED FROM THE HIGHER OF
REAR FRONT 1C MAXIMUM OF 50 SPACES THE NATURAL GRADE OR THE FINISHED GRADE LEVEL
IND.PK. 1D 1D PROVIDED BICYCLE PARKING: 50 P.S. ESTABLISHED BY THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
REAR FRONT
1D
7-STORY REQUIRED GUEST BICYCLE PARKING: 0.05 P.S. PER UNIT, DEPARTMENT TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE ROOF SURFACE
UP
R1-8 Z-82-79 1B 1D S 1D (5 OVER 2)
ELEV CLUBHOUSE MAXIMUM OF 50 SPACES OF FLAT ROOFS; OR THE MEAN HEIGHT BETWEEN EAVES AND
4 1D RESIDENTIAL 7
+77'-4" /LEASING
130'-0" 10'-0" PROVIDED GUEST BICYCLE PARKING: 16 P.S. RIDGE OR GABLE, GAMBREL OR HIP ROOF."
20'-0 INCLUDES 2 PS FOR
" AY)
5-STORY
10' BUILDING 10'-0" 1D S 1D EV EV
ST. ELECTRIC CHARGING SETBACKS - BUILDING PROV.
(+56'-0") EV EV 20'-0
SETBACK VENT ELEV. " ADW
2C RESIDENTIAL 20' BU
ILDIN NORTH SETBACK (BELL RD.) 15' FROM PROPERTY LINE
10' LANDSCAPE 10'-0" 1D 1D LOADING AREA:
PUD TE RO SETBA G
CK WEST SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK EV
20' LA
NDSC REQUIRED LOADING AREA: 1 LOADING AREA FOR
(PROPOSED) 24'-0" A EAST SETBACK (71ST ST.) 20' FROM BACK OF CURB
EV PORTE 15 SETBA PE EACH 150 UNITS
4-STORY CK SOUTH SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM PROPERTY LINE
COCHERE
(PRIVA
(+45'-4") PROVIDED LOADING AREA: 2 LOADING AREAS
W 71
106'-11"
A RESIDENTIAL 6-STORY PARKING EV A
ST
2A 25'-0" STRUCTURE WITH 25'-0" SETBACKS - LANDSCAPE PROV.
2A POOL TERRACE SOLID WASTE CALCULATIONS:
1F ABOVE (LEVEL 7 EV 5 3 NORTH LANDSCAPE SETBACK (BELL RD.) 15' FROM
SOUTH COURT +65'-4") SIDE GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS:
SIDE PROPERTY LINE
11'-0" 18'-0" 1. REQUIRED CAPACITY FOR REFUSE IS 0.5 C.Y. PER D.U.
(Open Space) EV WEST LANDSCAPE SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM
2A EV 7-STORY
C-2 PER WEEK PROPERTY LINE
46'-10" 1F 8'-6" 5'-0" 24'-0" (5 OVER 2) 2. SERVICED TWICE A WEEK
2A VENT RESIDENTIAL 14 Z-139-86 EAST LANDSCAPE SETBACK (71ST ST.) 20' FROM
+77'-4" 3. COMPACTION RATIO IS 3:1 BACK OF CURB
EV EV Z-167-87 315 D.U. x 0.5 C.Y. = 158 C.Y.
18'-0" SOUTH LANDSCAPE SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM
4 158 C.Y. / 2 = 79C.Y. PROPERTY LINE
2A 2
ELEV 79 C.Y. / 3 = (COMPACTION RATIO) 26 C.Y.
1D 1D 3
6-STORY (+65'-4")
COMPACTOR CAPACITY REQUIRED IS 26 C.Y. BIN
1D BIKE STORAGE PROPOSED UNIT COUNT 315
UP
2A 2ARESIDENTIAL
2A 1C TRASH & REPAIR
1D S 1D HOLDING
1D
1B
5-STORY (+56'-0") 10'-0" 10'-0"
RESIDENTIAL DOG
1G 2A 1J 1J 1A PARK 10'-0" 10' BUILDING REAR
SETBACK
10'-0" 10'-0" 10' LANDSCAPE
10' BUILDING
GROSS AREA SUMMARY EXISTING WALL C-2 SETBACK SETBACK
8 4
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
LEVEL 1 : 64,504 sf Z-139-86
10' LANDSCAPE
LEVEL 2 : 66,140 sf 10' BUILDING
Z-167-87
LEVEL 3 : 69,519 sf IND.PK. 0" 20' 40' 80'
LEVEL 4 : 69,551 sf SETBACK SETBACK
Z-82-79
LEVEL 5 : 62,559 sf SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
LEVEL 6 : 27,886 sf
GRAPHIC KEY LEGEND
LEVEL 7 : 29,003 sf
1. 10' LANDSCAPE STRIP
4-STORY RESIDENTIAL 1. FIRE TURNING RADIUS
TOTAL 389,162 sf 2. 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK
35' - INSIDE
Includes 10,108 sf of conditioned Pool Terrace Amenity Space (Type I Construction) at Level 7 3. LOADING/ MOVE-IN AREAS
55' - OUTSIDE C.A.P
4. FIRE HOSE PULL 350' MAX. 5-STORY RESIDENTIAL . CA
SCOTTSDALE RD.
NAL
Gross Area includes balcony & patio areas associated with units, corridors, stairs, elevators, and common amenity areas 5. PODIUM OVER 2-STORY PORTE COCHERE
2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING
(Clubhouse, Leasing, Mail, Fitness, etc.) 6. RIDE-SHARE DROP-OFF/ PICK-UP 6-STORY RESIDENTIAL
7. ENTRY PLAZA BELL
3. TRASH TURNING RADIUS SITE RD.
LEVEL 1 CLUBHOUSE AREA : 4,157 sf Include in Level 1 Gross Area 8. STEEL VIEW FENCE (6') 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL 28' 6'' - INSIDE 68TH ST.
GARAGE FOOTPRINT : 27,086 sf Assume parking structure is precast concrete construction 9. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC)
44' - OUTSIDE
LEVEL 3 PODIUM AREA : 27,687 sf Assume 18" thick post-tensioned slab supported independently with concrete 10. FIRE HYDRANT
columns and isolated from parking structure with expansion joint 11. FIRE RISER
4. EV EV PARKING PARADISE LN.
12. TRANSFORMERS
NSRF (Unit Net Rentable Area) : 271,622 sf 13. RAMADA EV (F)
5. EV READY PARKING
14. SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE TYP. KIVA NO: 01-21164
EFFICIENCY : 70% 15. GUEST BICYCLE PARKING SDEV: 0101827
16. DECORATIVE PAVERS PAPP: 2405316
VICINITY MAP/NTS REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES CONCEPTUAL
PUD SUBMITTAL #3
09-29-25 SITE PLAN
September 29, 2025
A2
24-2043-00
A F I G B I D E C B G H C A D B F F H H
83'-0" TOP OF
ROOF TYPE IIIA
OVER TYPE I E A B G C E G B C A D F A F
66'-0" 7
55'-4" 6
44'-8" 5
34'-0" 4
23'-4" 3
12'-8" 2
0'-0" 1
Art Mural (Exempt From Sign Ordinance Requirements)
Final Design to be Determined
NORTH ELEVATION A STUCCO 01
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
B STUCCO 02
C STUCCO 03
D STUCCO 03
A C F J B I F A D A C A D B E G A G D A F E E D A G F E G C B C
E SIMULATED WOOD SIDING
83'-0" TOP OF ROOF
ACM EXTERNAL WALL
TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE I F PANEL
7 66'-0" CONCRETE MASONRY
G UNIT 01
6 55'-4"
CONCRETE MASONRY
H UNIT 02
5 44'-8"
STOREFRONT WINDOWS
I AND DOORS
4 34'-0"
RESIDENTIAL VINYL
J WINDOWS
3 23'-4"
2 12'-8"
1 0'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
0" 8' 16' 32'
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
KIVA NO: 01-21164
SDEV: 0101827
PAPP: 2405316
REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES PUD SUBMITTAL #3 ELEVATIONS
09-29-25
September 29, 2025
A16
24-2043-00
B G H A F E I B C A D E A C E A C B C D A F I
83'-0" TOP OF ROOF
TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE I
A B C G A D E A C G B J A E
7 66'-0"
6 55'-4"
5 44'-8"
4 34'-0"
3 23'-4"
2 12'-8"
1 0'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION A STUCCO 01
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
B STUCCO 02
C STUCCO 03
H E A C B E F A B D E G B C J H C A J C J B
D STUCCO 03
E SIMULATED WOOD SIDING
83'-0" TOP OF ROOF
TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE I
B D G C C ACM EXTERNAL WALL
F PANEL
7 66'-0"
CONCRETE MASONRY
G UNIT 01
6 55'-4"
CONCRETE MASONRY
5 44'-8" H UNIT 02
4 34'-0" STOREFRONT WINDOWS
I AND DOORS
3 23'-4" RESIDENTIAL VINYL
J WINDOWS
2 12'-8"
1 0'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
0" 8' 16' 32'
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
KIVA NO: 01-21164
SDEV: 0101827
PAPP: 2405316
REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES PUD SUBMITTAL #3 ELEVATIONS
09-29-25
September 29, 2025
A17
24-2043-00
BELL
ROA
D
(PRIV T STREE
A TE R T
71S OAD
WA Y
)
SEVENTH LEVEL LANDSCAPE
SCALE: 1"=40'
C.A.P
. CA
SCOTTSDALE RD.
NAL
0" 15' 30' 60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
BELL
SITE RD .
68TH ST.
KIVA NO: 01-21164
SDEV: 0101827
PARADISE LN. PAPP: 2405316
REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
VICINITY MAP/NTS
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES CONCEPTUAL
PUD SUBMITTAL #3
LANDSCAPE PLAN L1
September 29, 2025
24-2043-00
July 31, 2025
To: Snell & Wilmer and Case Managers
My name is Shaina Swimmer, and I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the
proposed zoning change and residential development at Scottsdale Crossing. I respectfully
request that this letter be added to the official case file.
This project proposes to change the land use designation from industrial/commercial to
residential, an action I believe is unjust, detrimental to the city’s long-term interests, and
harmful to neighboring homeowners’ privacy and detrimental to property value.
1. Not the Highest and Best Use of the Land
This property’s highest and best use is commercial, not residential. A thoughtfully designed
commercial space, such as shops, restaurants, or locally owned businesses, would promote
economic activity, support small business owners, create jobs, and generate ongoing tax revenue
for the city of Phoenix. A rental apartment complex offers no meaningful return to the
community or municipal infrastructure and sacrifices the commercial potential for temporary
housing solutions.
2. Severe Privacy Violations
I live at 6907 E Phelps Rd, Scottsdale, AZ 85254, directly bordering to the west side of the
proposed development. This plan would impact not just my home, but the privacy of at many
homes along the cul de sacs. The proposed balconies and windows will have direct line of sight
into multiple backyards and homes, stripping away any sense of privacy. This is a violation of
our privacy rights and will permanently alter our quality of life and investments.
3. Technology-Based Privacy & Safety Concerns
In a digital era where surveillance technology is increasingly accessible, I have serious concerns
about the possibility of unauthorized recordings, spying, or data misuse from residents in
elevated positions. This is not a hypothetical concern, it's a realistic risk that infringes on our
expectation of safety and privacy in our own homes. Some renter could be spying and plotting to
rob a house or worse. This all goes back to the privacy concern that the balconies and large
windows are directly facing multiple backyards such as my own.
4. Detrimental to Property Value
As a realtor, I can tell you firsthand that placing a residential complex directly behind any
property is a detrimental decrease of property value. Privacy is a key value in real estate and that
value will be stripped away. This doesn’t just impact my property; it diminishes the long-term
investment potential of every neighboring home. Rezoning to residential in this location is a
short-sighted decision that undermines homeowner equity and weakens the city’s real estate
foundation.
5. Public Safety Threats
There are numerous police & government cases where balconies and elevated access points have
been misused by individuals with harmful intent. Allowing renters elevated, direct visual access
into our daily lives opens the door to criminal behavior, including robbery, stalking, or worse. As
a resident, I no longer feel safe with the threat of such visibility looming over our homes. This is
a public safety hazard and misuse of privacy.
6. Closing Thoughts
I want to be clear: I am not against development. I am against this specific development in this
specific location, where it directly threatens safety, privacy, public safety and long-term
economic value for our community.
I understand that Snell & Wilmer has an interest in contributing to the growth of our city, and I
appreciate their intention to bring development to the area. However, given the significant
concerns around privacy, property value, and public safety, placing trees directly in our
backyards, and shifting the burden of lifelong maintenance, trimming, watering, and increased
utility costs onto homeowners, is not a meaningful or beneficial solution.
Using the space for temporary “luxury” housing, by contrast, does little to serve long-term
community needs. As a local realtor, I can confirm that two-bedroom units in this area renting for
around $3,000 are not considered luxury; that price point is simply the baseline for standard
rentals in this market.
Please confirm that this letter has been added to the case file. Thank you for your time reading.
Sincerely,
Shaina Swimmer
6907 E Phelps Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
From: Natasa Obradovic
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Re: Z-41-25-2: 7077E Bell road
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:53:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr. Moric
Thank you for your response and for placing my comments on record.
I want to take this opportunity to emphasize how important it is for us to preserve the
character, peace, and privacy of our neighborhood. This is a family-centered
community, and many of us moved here specifically because of the safety, tranquility,
and the sense of privacy that our homes currently offer.
The proposed development poses a serious concern for our families. It directly threatens the
privacy of our backyards and living spaces — the places where we raise our children, gather
with loved ones, and unwind in peace. We feel strongly that the integrity of our neighborhood
and the well-being of its residents must remain a top priority in any planning decisions.
We ask that the voices of the families who live here every day be taken seriously and
given full consideration during all upcoming hearings and reviews.
Please keep me informed of the hearing schedule once it becomes available. I appreciate your
time and ongoing communication.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 8:32 AM Matteo Moric wrote:
Hello Ms. Raden,
I will place your comments in the file for the record and it will accompany the staff report.
The public hearings have not been scheduled yet including the Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee, Planning Commission and City Council.
Please let me know if there is anything else you may need.
Thank you,
Matteo Moric, AICP
Planner II* Village
Planning and Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
matteo.moric@phoenix.gov
(602) 261-8235
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Natasa Obradovic
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Z-41-25-2:7077E Bell road
Dear Mr. Moric I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to express my concern regarding the proposed construction project in our neighborhood. I understand my neighbor Diane has already contacted you on this matter, and I share her
Dear Mr. Moric
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to express my concern regarding the
proposed construction project in our neighborhood. I understand my neighbor Diane has
already contacted you on this matter, and I share her sentiments entirely — we are not in
support of any new buildings being developed in this area.
This neighborhood was chosen by many of us, including my family, specifically for its
peaceful, private, and residential character. Any new development, particularly one that
brings additional buildings and residents, would significantly impact the sense of privacy
and security that we value.
Personally, I am directly affected by the proposed construction, as the new buildings would
overlook my backyard and even the second-floor windows of my home, including our
bathroom. This creates a real and concerning invasion of our family’s privacy.
I would appreciate being kept informed of any developments or meetings related to this
project. If there is a better time to connect or if you need any additional information from me
prior to a formal discussion, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Natasa Raden ( maiden Obradovic)
Proper 6911 E Phelps road Scottsdale AZ 85254
From: Diane G
To: Matteo Moric
Cc: Natasa Obradovic
Subject: Fwd: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd
Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:06:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I have reached out to our city councilman several times regarding concerns with this proposed
rezoning. Unfortunately he is unresponsive, but now I will reach out to the City. I am a
thousand percent against this rezoning. The residents of this proposed project will literally
look directly into my back yard. This is unacceptable.
Diane Griffith
Begin forwarded message:
From: Diane G
Date: July 6, 2025 at 9:57:48 PM MST
To: jim@jimwaring.com
Subject: Fwd: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd
Mr. Waring:
I wrote to you on 6/13/25, and again on 6/29/25 with no response.
Please understand again I’m not dropping this problem. This
proposed development is apartments that will look directly in my
back yard, 150 feet from our loved neighborhood. The site is zoned
2-story commercial. I researched this prior to purchasing our home.
Now it’s proposed to being 9-story residential apartments. This is
unacceptable. This is my 3rd time reaching out with no reply. I am
losing faith, but please know I have a neighborhood backing me. We
all feel the same. This is not zoned for an apartment complex.
Diane
From: Diane G
Date: June 29, 2025 at 7:45:55 AM MST
To: jim@jimwaring.com
Subject: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd
I wrote to you on 6/13/25 with no response. Please understand I’m
not dropping this. I have lived in this neighborhood since January
2002. This proposed development is a bunch of apartments that will
look in my back yard, directly. I researched the zoning prior to
moving to my current house, and the site is zoned 2-story
commercial. Now it’s proposed to being 9-story residential. NO. I am
reaching out to you again, and invite you to spend some time in our
back yard, our oasis that will no longer be private if this re-zoning
goes through. Please reach out to me to discuss further.
Diane Griffith
602-831-7619
From: Deborah Harris
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Re: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd -NO
Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:33:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Thank you - I am unable to attend May 19 as I will be out of town but rallying the neighbors
to attend. Neighbors worked up about this invasion of privacy. We purchase cul-de-sac homes
for a REASON
PRIVACY
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2025, at 7:47 AM, Matteo Moric
wrote:
Thank you for the email, Ms. Harris.
I will place your email in the records with the City Rezoning file which gets
included in the staff report.
Have a nice day!
Matteo Moric, AICP
Planner II* Village
Planning and Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
matteo.moric@phoenix.gov
(602) 261-8235
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Deborah Harris
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:54 AM
To: mdellow@swlaw.com
Cc: Matteo Moric
Subject: 7077 E Bell Rd -NO
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 7077 E Bell Rd To Whom It May Concern I am writing to formally express my deep concern regarding the proposed seven-level development adjacent to my home. As a resident of this neighborhood
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 7077 E
Bell Rd
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing to formally express my deep concern regarding the
proposed seven-level development adjacent to my home.
As a resident of this neighborhood for over 30 years, I am
extremely distressed by the significant impact this project will
have on the privacy, enjoyment, and value of my property. The
proposed structure will directly overlook my backyard and pool
area, which have always been private spaces for my family. The
idea of losing that privacy to a multi-level building is not only
intrusive but completely unacceptable.
Beyond the personal impact, a development of this scale is out of
character with the surrounding neighborhood and risks negatively
affecting property values for long-standing residents such as
myself. I urge you to reconsider the scale and design of this
project in favor of a more respectful and context-sensitive
approach. 2 levels is bad enough and the growth in this area is
ridiculous. You all have plenty of space to freaking build
something besides in my backyard. How would you like laying in
your backyard pool with seven stories staring down at you like a
hotel when you have a $700,000 house??!!! And foremost my
property value, which as a widow is all I have left and you’re
gonna take it away!
I will be seeking advice on all available planning and legal
avenues to challenge this development and will be engaging with
council, neighbors, and relevant authorities to oppose it unless
significant changes are made.
I hope you will take these concerns seriously and welcome any
opportunity for open dialogue on how this issue might be
resolved in a way that respects this beautiful neighborhood.
Mrdkharris
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Date of VPC Meeting November 3, 2025
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with deletions
VPC Vote 7-5
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and companion Planned
Unit Development (PUD) rezoning case. Mr. Moric stated these cases would be heard
together. Mr. Moric shared a map identifying the location and size of the subject site and
provided background and contextual information about the requests.
Mr. Moric noted that although the site is less than 10 acres in size, the exception
regarding any residential request in a designated industrial or commerce park area is
triggered, thus a minor General Plan Amendment is required. Mr. Moric stated the
findings and the staff recommendation of approval for the General Plan Amendment
request.
Mr. Moric then presented the zone change request and shared a map of the
surrounding zoning, identified the proposed development standards, the site plan,
building elevations and summarized the design guidelines. Mr. Moric also stated staff
received four letters of opposition regarding the proposal and noted the community
concerns. Mr. Moric summarized the staff findings and stated staff recommended
approval subject to stipulations. Mr. Moric then summed up the recommended
stipulations and the next steps for the proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 561
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, reminded the Committee that he presented this
case previously for information only. Mr. Wood stated the site is just west of the
intersection of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. Mr. Wood said immediately east of the
site was a CVS Pharmacy and at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road was a
previously approved PUD. Mr. Wood explained there was a mini-storage warehouse
site directly west of the subject site and next to that was a single-family residential
subdivision. Mr. Wood noted some additional context that hotels were located south of
the subject site, and further south was the Kierland area and east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood said one of the questions which was raised at the previous meeting was
regarding 71st Street and he reminded the Committee that it is a private drive shared by
all the property owners that are adjacent to it and Mr. Wood emphasized it is not a city
street. Mr. Wood said all the traffic from the proposal moves off 71st Street and
explained the movement and median breaks in the area. Mr. Wood said the only reason
people would travel south on 71st Street is if they are going to the gas station or
traveling south down Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said the site was never built as
industrial but that is what the General Plan is showing it designated as, so they are now
requesting a General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Residential 15+ dwelling units
per acre and a rezone from C-2 to PUD. Mr. Wood stated the conceptual site plan
proposes 315 dwelling units. Mr. Wood explained he loved the site plan and building
elevations as most recent developments seem to be boxes and this has lots of
movement and articulation to create visual interest in the architecture which will create a
special place. Mr. Wood said it would have a wrap parking structure, where the units
wrap around the structure and there would be parking on each floor. Mr. Wood indicated
he lives in Optima Camelback in the Old Town Scottsdale area, where the car parking is
underground and everything must come up and down such as groceries. Mr. Wood said
the building utilizes a step-down approach for the height to reduce as it moves west
closer to the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood shared information related to nearby sites such as the Manor Scottsdale at
13220 North Scottsdale Road, which was the old L.A. Fitness site where they proposed
a four- and five-story development next to single family residences. Mr. Wood explained
that they initially had lots of opposition but had worked with neighbors to ensure they
were satisfied as they had no opposition at the hearing.
Mr. Wood showed another site which was the Kierland II Office Building at 16260 North
71st Street which was 56 feet tall from the single-family residential property lines 160
feet away, and 70 feet tall, 220 feet away from the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood explained the proposal is lushly landscaped, with landscaping between the
curb and sidewalk, and between the sidewalk and the building. Mr. Wood said
everything has visual interest on the site plan and nothing is the same. Mr. Wood added
they are proposing balconies which are inverted and exterior oriented.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 562
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Mr. Wood then showed several conceptual renderings. Mr. Wood said the current C-2
zoning allowed approximately 325 more uses than the proposed multifamily residences.
Mr. Wood also shared a table breaking out the trips generated from the existing C-2
zoning to the proposed PUD zoning. Mr. Wood summed up that the proposal would
have far less traffic than the existing zoning allowed. Mr. Wood said the good news is
traffic can’t get to the single-family residences to the west so there would be no cut-
through traffic there.
Mr. Wood asked not to have the staff recommended signage stipulations and to delete
those.
Mr. Wood said they worked very closely with the neighborhood to the west. Mr. Wood
showed a community outreach map which identified where support came from. Mr.
Wood said they received 170 letters in support, 120 statements of support (verbal) and
127 neutral statements. Mr. Wood then shared a map showing which properties had
previously opposed the project but were actively collaborating towards screening
solutions, and those previously opposed and non-responsive.
Questions from Committee
Robert Goodhue asked why did the applicant not want to comply with the City of
Phoenix Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wood said there were two ways to have signs approved
with one being through the PUD rezone process and the other was to go through a
Comprehensive Sign Package application. Mr. Wood said it will take a lot of extra time
and would typically get approved unless they do something new and stupid. Mr.
Goodhue said normally developers go through the Comprehensive Sign process.
Diane Peterson had concerns with the sewer and traffic. Ms. Peterson was concerned
with the cumulative effect of building after building, “Optima after Optima”. Ms. Peterson
expressed concern with traffic going south on Scottsdale Road and said those who live
just south believed traffic is a nightmare. Ms. Peterson shared concerns about the
sewer work and capacity. Mr. Wood replied that the project’s civil engineer worked with
the City Water Services Division and there was enough sewer capacity. Ms. Peterson
added there are few egresses that go through Scottsdale Road and may not go through
the neighborhood on the west but would travel through other neighborhoods. Mr. Wood
said this project is so far north and near the freeway.
Larisa Balderrama asked about the height of the proposed building at the corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road and asked if it would be constructed. Mr. Wood noted it
was going to be 12 stories and that it would be built. Ms. Balderrama asked questions
about traffic movement and thought there may be some challenges to turn. Mr. Wood
stated there was not enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal.
Roy Wise noted he often travels north on Scottsdale Road and thinks traffic will back up
on Scottsdale Road and is concerned that to turn left on Bell Road will be impossible.
Mr. Wise thought turning right on Bell Road and traveling to the left turn lane to turn left
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 563
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
on Scottsdale Road will be a challenge. Marina Stender, the applicant’s traffic engineer
for the project, explained how trips will be generated from the proposal. Ms. Stender
stated the project would not warrant a traffic signal, otherwise, a traffic signal study
would have to be requested.
Ms. Peterson asked if the cumulative effect of all the buildings around the project were
taken into consideration. Ms. Stender said as traffic engineers they are required to
analyze all existing developments and approved development and layer their trips on
top of it to see how it affects the roadway network and the capacity of the roadway. Ms.
Stender noted that the project did not trigger a full traffic study for the City of Phoenix.
Ms. Stender said the existing right and left turn lane on Bell Road was already built
longer than the minimum required.
Anna Sepic asked for clarity regarding the traffic analysis and if it included the potential
C-2 uses which did not exist. Ms. Stender said they did the analysis on both current
and potential C-2 uses.
Patrice Marcolla asked about the traffic study and wondered why it did not trigger a
traffic impact analysis. Ms. Stender said a full traffic impact analysis is not required.
Vice Chair Amber Sommer asked if the lot at the corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road was taken into account for the traffic study. Ms. Sepic stated that 251 units are to
come in at the corner. Ms. Stender said with that proposed project they would need to
do their own traffic study. Ms. Stender said currently that corner property is empty and
not generating any existing trips.
Robert Gubser asked if they recall if the project at Scottsdale Road and Bell Road will
use 71st Street as its main access. Mr. Wood said that 71st Street would be that
project’s secondary access and there would be two access points.
Ms. Sepic asked about the proposed zoning and if they were asking for a C-2 or PUD
and asked what the density is. Mr. Wood said the density is 73 dwelling units per acre
with 315 units.
Ms. Marcolla said the ITE traffic study does not seem specific to this site. Ms. Stender
said the ITE is the bible for traffic studies and there are different categories for studies.
Ms. Marcolla said this is specific for the ITE on all streets incoming and outgoing.
Mr. Wood said that the Street Transportation Department said before a site plan is
approved it would require a full Traffic Impact Study. Mr. Wood said they followed the
Street Transportation Department’s instruction.
Ms. Peterson asked if before site approval they will need to do a full traffic study. Mr.
Wood said yes.
Mr. Goodhue explained the applicant is going through a rezoning to approve the use
and once the use is approved their next step is to go through the site planning approval
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 564
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
process. Mr. Goodhue said the site plan comes after it is at the City Council level. Mr.
Goodhue stated in this case when looking at trip generation, the project will still need to
go through the TIA before site plan approval. Mr. Wood said after and if the proposal
gets Council approval, the applicant will need to get preliminary and final site plan
approval.
Ms. Marcolla wanted to know if there was an initial or historic traffic study for the site.
Mr. Wood was not certain but said the study would have been many years ago for a
two-story shopping center.
Kate Bauer said 1,300 residential units were being built near Mayo on the south side of
the 101 and provided information that there currently was 10.5% vacancy rate. Ms.
Bauer noted a lot of new apartments were coming and if the applicant saw a lot of
demand. Mr. Wood said he was not certain about the marketing, but his client was
planning to spend $80 to 90 million on which the lender would need to feel comfortable.
Justin Westfall, with Fifield Companies, said there were many units delivered across
the north Scottsdale and Phoenix market and there is a tremendous amount of job
growth occurring in the area. Mr. Westfall stated these include medical jobs, new
headquarters, Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) associated jobs and
with the combination of the projected job growth along with the housing shortage there
is a high demand for housing.
Ms. Peterson said her thought of the village concept is to have people live and work in
each village. Ms. Peterson was concerned these units would not be affordable and this
is an issue. Ms. Peterson added there is a shortage of housing for people who cannot
afford to live at the Optima’s such as teachers and fire fighters. Mr. Westfall said they
would provide a range from studios to three-bedroom units and most of the units would
be studios and one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there would be a variety of housing
options and would not be as expensive as Optima projects. Ms. Peterson also asked
about units for families who need more than one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there were
also two- and three-bedroom units. Mr. Westfall said there would be different price
points depending on where the units are located in the building.
Mr. Goodhue said when the Mayo Hospital was coming into the City of Phoenix, City
staff had worked with developers in that area and there was astronomical growth and
this project could help accommodate people living close to their place of employment.
Mr. Wood said he recently worked on a rezoning case of 240 acres in the Paradise
Ridge area and it anticipates 5 to 6 million square feet of additional job generation and
said some construction started but it probably will be a 20-year build out. Mr. Wood
added that investors and lenders will need to be satisfied the project will work, otherwise
it would not be built.
Ms. Baldarrama asked if the units will be allowed to be used for short-term rentals. Mr.
Westfall noted that for most rentals of their properties are for a minimum of 12 to 18
months. Mr. Westfall said there is not usually a sublease situation where people can
rent the units as Airbnb’s.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 565
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Ms. Baldarrama was concerned with housing shortages due to these short-term
rentals. Mr. Wood stated his developer clients do not usually allow Airbnb’s as they are
usually disruptive for other resident tenants.
Vice Chair Sommer noted the previous concern of privacy at the information meeting
and was wondering what they’d do to accommodate the west side residential neighbors.
Mr. Wood said they had reached an agreement with a few of the neighbors to raise
walls and install trees to alleviate concerns with privacy.
Mr. Gubser asked about pedestrian accessibility and if there was access on 71st
Street. Mr. Wood said there were sidewalks along 71st Street and there was a
detached sidewalk along Bell Road.
Mr. Gubser questioned if there was a pull-out for rideshares on 71st Street as he was
concerned about cars stacking. Mr. Westfall noted there was a porte-cochere where
rideshares could be pulled onto the site for drop-offs.
Public Comments
None.
Applicant Response
None.
Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.
Committee Member Roy Wise made a motion to recommend approval of Z-41-25-2,
per the staff recommendation, with deletions of Stipulation Nos. 1.c and 1.e. Committee
Member Regina Schmidt seconded the motion.
VOTE:
7-5; motion to approve Z-41-25-2, per the staff recommendation, with deletions passes
with Committee members Franks, Goodhue, Gubser, Hamra, Schmidt, Wise and
Sommer in favor; Committee members Balderrama, Bauer, Marcolla, Peterson, and
Sepic in opposition.
Recommended Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent
with the Development Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by
the following stipulations:
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 566
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph
“Within the outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm trees
may count towards required shade" and replace it with “Shade may be
achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Pages 19, F1: Permitted Signs: Delete all and replace with “All signage shall
comply with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705. A
Comprehensive Sign Plan may be processed in accordance with Section
705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance.”
d. c. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update
the number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.”
e. Exhibit 14: Remove the exhibit on the last page titled “Conceptual Signage
Plan”.
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior
to final site plan approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded,
adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with the affected
utility companies for their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 567
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
Staff recommends retaining the two deleted stipulations related to signage since there is
an established process for adopting a new Comprehensive Sign Plan, which requires a
use permit per Section 705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance. All signs will require a sign
permit, and there is a defined sign permit process in place for that purpose.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 568
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 6, 2025
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Rezoning cases and noted they were for informational purposes
only at this time. Mr. Moric then introduced the applicant and representative.
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, provided the context of the area surrounding the
proposal. Mr. Wood reminded the Committee he had been in front of them several years
prior for a case at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said it was
for a high-rise apartment project that will break ground in 2026 with heights of up to 156
feet. Mr. Wood noted next to the subject site on the east is a CVS Pharmacy, to the
west is single-family subdivision, and ministorage and hotels are located to the south.
Mr. Wood added that further south is the Kierland area and to the east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood stated the subject site is currently zoned C-2 and they are proposing to
rezone to a PUD. Mr. Wood added the general plan designates the site as Industrial.
Mr. Wood showed the conceptual site plan which shows the proposed buildings facing
Bell Road and 71st Street. Mr. Wood indicated 71st Street is a private street which has
an easement to Bell Road. Mr. Wood explained how the project has its residential units
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 569
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2 – Information Only
wrap around the parking structure and noted the parking structure is as tall as the rest
of the building.
Mr. Wood stated they had been working with the neighboring residents to the west.
Mr. Wood added the conceptual plan shows movement and depth at the grade level.
Mr. Wood said there was a step-down design. Mr. Wood said the standard for the step
back design was created for the old LA Fitness site south of Kierland, where single-
family homes were on two sides and the design was where this 4-story convention was
used with similar distances to the balconies. Mr. Wood said this was used as the
guideline for the 4-story portion of the building to the property line of the single-family
residences.
Mr. Wood said staff supported lush landscaping and because the proposal has the
depth it enhances the landscape along Bell Road and as the landscaping circulates the
building itself. Mr. Wood complimented the architecture and said there was a lot of
visual interest in items such as the roofline and types of balconies including recessed
balconies. Mr. Wood added that the proposed building does not have a long boring
façade. Mr. Wood said that most developers want to take advantage of every square
foot of the interior and in this case to do more quality design they’ve included the
recessed balconies which add shade and an architectural element.
Mr. Wood stated 71st Street is the entry into the parking structure and the building
lobby. Mr. Wood shared the renderings and noted there are a tremendous number of
amenities and the parking structure would be screened and the roof becomes the
location for a pool, club house, and amenity area. Mr. Wood showed how the building
steps down as you move from east to west.
Mr. Wood indicated the site is being down zoned from C-2 which he said allows many
more uses that are typically high traffic generators. Mr. Wood shared trip generation
numbers and noted that there is no vehicular connection with this project and the
subdivision to the west. Mr. Wood added they had worked closely with the neighbors.
Questions from Committee
Ms. Diane Peterson asked about the traffic study and was wondering about traffic
traveling to and from Scottsdale and traffic going down 71st Street through other
neighborhoods which do not have an entrance on Bell Road. Mr. Wood said the traffic
study shows the use was a low traffic generator. Ms. Peterson was more concerned
with the cumulative effect of the traffic and believes this is changing the nature of some
of the neighborhoods. Mr. Wood reinforced they were a smaller traffic generator than C-
2 zoning.
Mr. Robert Goodhue said he goes to the CVS next to the subject site periodically and
of all times he has driven through the area and noted there were not many cars
traveling and thought the area at times is deserted. Mr. Goodhue asked if the neighbors
to the west next to the mini storage supported the project. Mr. Wood stated the single-
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 570
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2 – Information Only
family neighbors to the west had not shared their support yet, however, they had
worked with the neighbors very closely. Mr. Wood indicated they had worked on sight
line studies and were discussing landscaping. Mr. Wood said usually privacy is more of
an issue than the height of the building and they are trying to work with the neighbors on
this matter. Mr. Goodhue said he hoped they could satisfy concerned neighbors.
Ms. Patrice Marcolla said it is nice to see redevelopment if the spaces are not being
used and was wondering why the commercial spaces of the subject site are not being
used. Mr. Wood said the seller is not renewing leases.
Chair Anita Mortensen asked if parking is all on one level. Mr. Wood responded that
parking is on each level.
Ms. Peterson said she is concerned with the major exit from the building on an
easement which is shared by many property owners.
Chair Mortensen expressed some concerns that were raised after the meeting
associated with the multi-story building proposed at the corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road. Chair Mortensen added that the storage building to the west was not very
wide and not just one or two individuals would be concerned about height. Chair
Mortensen thought four-stories facing the single-family residences would be an issue
even if landscaping and buffers were provided in the backyards. Mr. Wood said the
single-family properties to the west were separated by about one-half a football field
away from the proposed four-story portion of the building.
Ms. Jennifer Hall asked if there was a drop-off or pick-up area for someone wanting to
use rideshare. Mr. Wood showed where on the plans there would be space for a drop
off near 71st Street. Ms. Hall asked if there was only one way into the project. Mr. Wood
said the other driveway on the west side of the site does not punch through.
Vice Chair Sommers asked about the landscaping on the west side. Kevin Farrell with
Fifield Companies noted the plants will be twenty to thirty feet tall when transported.
Chair Mortensen asked what type of trees would be planted. Mr. Wood said they had
not figured out the exact species of the plant material palette.
Ms. Hall asked about the setbacks and had concerns as a lot of buildings are going up
in the Kierland area with the buildings being built so close to the road. Mr. Wood said
this was a legitimate concern, however, he felt they addressed this through detached
sidewalks, landscape between sidewalk and the buildings and there is an open area
which breaks up the building along the street fronts.
Ms. Regina Schmidt said screening trees is the only way to get privacy. Mr. Wood
said they were working with the neighbors to help address privacy issues.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 571
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2 – Information Only
Mr. Daniel Mazza felt this was a well-done project and was impressed with the
proposed wrap shielding the parking areas.
Ms. Peterson asked about the reaction of Jackson’s Car Wash. Mr. Wood said the car
wash loves the proposal as 71st Street is an easement that everyone has a right to use.
Ms. Marcolla asked about guest parking and Maggie Dellow with the applicant said it
is at 0.5 space per required vehicle parking. Mr. Wood added that it is a gated parking
structure.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 572
ATTACHMENTD
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD) (Companion Case
GPA-PV-1-25-2)
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale
Road and Bell Road
From: C-2
To: PUD
Acreage: 4.32
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Fifield Companies
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 10/6/2025 Information only.
Paradise Valley 11/3/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with deletions. Vote: 7-5.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-41-25-2, per the Paradise
Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation in companion case GPA-PV-1-25-2 and is compatible with the transitioning
land use pattern in the surrounding area.
2. The proposed development will add to the mix of housing options within the Desert
Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that support efforts from
various plans and initiatives, including the Shade Phoenix Plan, the Complete Streets
Guiding Principles, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, the Housing Phoenix Plan,
Zero Waste PHX, the Transportation Electrification Action Plan, and the Phoenix Climate
Action Plan.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning
and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date
stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph “Within the
outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm trees may count towards
required shade” and replace it with “Shade may be achieved by structures or by
landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Pages 19, F1: Permitted Signs: Delete all and replace with “All signage shall comply
with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705. A Comprehensive Sign Plan
may be processed in accordance with Section 705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance.”
d. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update the
c. number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup program for a
minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.”
e. Exhibit 14: Remove the exhibit on the last page titled “Conceptual Signage Plan”.
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process, prior
to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix for the
site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final site plan
approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded, adjacent
to the development. The developer shall coordinate with the affected utility companies for
their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
7. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and
delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT E
COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE
POST-VPC MEETING
Report
(Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD) - Approximately 660 Feet West of the
Southwest Corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road (Ordinance G-7475) -
District 2
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-41-25-
2 and rezone the site from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow multifamily residential and commercial uses. This is a
companion case to GPA-PV-1-25-2 and must be heard following GPA-PV-1-25-2.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 4.32
Proposal: Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Applicant: Fifield Companies
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 6, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 3, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with
deletions, by a vote of 7-5.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 7079 E. Bell Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-41-25-2) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.32-acre site located at approximately 660
feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road in a portion of
Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial) 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 Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent
with the Development Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by
the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph
“Within the outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm
trees may count towards required shade" and replace it with “Shade may
be achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update
the number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.”
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-41-25-2
WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE
GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL NO. 1
PARCEL A, OF PRINCESS CROSSING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
RECORDED IN BOOK 445 OF MAPS, PAGE 18.
PARCEL NO. 2
PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY, PROJECT FACILITIES
AND ROADWAY PROVIDING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS UPON,
ACROSS, OVER AND UNDER REAL PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS THE “INTERNAL
ROADWAY” DESCRIBED AND GRANTED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 96-0834703 AND
AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 97-0365804 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL NO. 3
A PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VEHICULAR,
PEDESTRIAN, UTILITY AND OTHER INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM THE
ZENITH PROPERTIES, AS CREATED IN CROSS EASEMENT RECORDED IN
DOCUMENT NO. 1997-0301868 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-41-25-2
(Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD)
October 26, 2025
Paradise Valley Village Planning November 3, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 4, 2025
Request From: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (4.32 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (4.32
acres)
Proposal: To allow multifamily residential and
commercial uses
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the
southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings LLC
Applicant: Fifield Companies
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Industrial
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Pending (GPA-PV-1-25-2): Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre
Major Width varies from 55-foot to
Bell Road
Arterial 67.29-foot south half street
Street Map Classification
Local Street
71st Street 20-foot west half street
(Private)
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to employment
centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation alternatives exist.
The proposal will add to the mix of housing types within the immediate area, which is a
node of commercial activity, and will be located within a designated employment center.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
General Plan Conformity
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Development should be designed to included convenient bicycle parking.
The PUD includes bicycle parking for both residents and guests. The PUD also includes
other bicycle infrastructure, including electric bicycle charging and a bicycle repair station,
in order to support alternative modes of transportation.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPILE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The PUD proposes standards that integrate trees and shade in the design, including
enhanced landscaping around the perimeter of the site, shaded detached sidewalks, and
additional outdoor open space areas.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Desert Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center – See Background Item. No. 2.
Shade Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 11.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 12.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 13.
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 14.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 15.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 16.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan – See Background Item No. 17.
Conservation Measures for New Development - See Background Item No.18
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Commercial and office C-2
North (across Bell
Canal and multifamily residential R1-14 and R-3A
Road)
South Self-service storage warehouse and hotel IND. PK. and C-2
West Self-service storage warehouse IND. PK
East (across 71st
Retail C-2
Street)
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 4.32-acre site located approximately 660 feet west
of the southwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. The request is to
rezone from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow multifamily residential and commercial uses.
2. Desert Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center
The subject site falls within the boundaries of the City of Phoenix designated
employment center. The Desert Ridge/Kierland employment center extends
east from 36th Street to Scottsdale Road between Deer Valley Road and the
Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal, including the area from 64th Street to
Scottsdale Road between the CAP canal and Acoma Drive.
Major Employment Centers Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Industrial.
The proposal is inconsistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map
designation, and although the site is less than 10 acres in size, the exception
regarding any residential request in a designated industrial or commerce park
area is triggered; thus, a minor General Plan Amendment is required. A
concurrent minor General Plan Amendment case, GPA-PV-1-25-2, is proposed
to change the General Plan Land Use Map designation to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre. The proposed PUD zoning is consistent with the
proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation.
The General Plan Land Use Map designation to the north of the site is
Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned. To the west, south, and east of the site
is designated as Industrial.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
GPA-PV-1-25-2 Sketch Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES
4. To the north, across Bell Road, is the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal
zoned R1-14 (One-Family Residence) and multifamily residential zoned R-3A
(Multifamily Residence District). To the west is a self-service storage
warehouse zoned IND.PK. (Industrial Park) and a single-family subdivision
zoned R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District). To the south is a self-service
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
storage warehouse zoned IND.PK (Industrial Park) and hotels zoned C-2
(Intermediate Commercial). To the east, across 71st Street, is a retail
business zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial).
Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Department
PROPOSAL
5. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned
Unit Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is
superior to that produced by conventional zoning districts and design
guidelines. Using a collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant
authors and proposes standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context
of a site on a case-by-case basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is
silent on a requirement, the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be
applied.
6. The PUD proposes standards that support the vision of a well-landscaped and
more pedestrian friendly multifamily residential development with a detached
sidewalk along Bell Road, a new sidewalk along 71st Street, shading, and
pedestrian paths.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
The building ranges from four to seven-stories and utilizes a stepdown
approach to promote more quality architecture and help reduce impacts to the
single-family residences on the west side of the development. The building
wraps around a parking structure which serves the residents and guests
further reducing the negative impacts of vehicular parking by minimizing the
visibility of the vehicles and parking garage. There also is a minimum 15
percent of the total gross site area consisting of common open space including
amenities such as a club room, yoga and fitness center, dog run/park, walking
path, swimming pool, etc.
7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as
described in the attached PUD Development Narrative. The proposed
standards were designed to allow for a multifamily development that provides
enhanced architecture, landscaping and a more pedestrian-friendly
environment which is sensitive to the surrounding uses.
List of Uses
The Development Narrative proposes a number of permitted uses. The
proposed uses consist of the permitted C-2 zoning uses found in Section 623
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, with many prohibited uses. Additionally,
multifamily residential is permitted with a maximum of 315 residential dwelling
units.
The Development Narrative also proposes restricting certain uses that are
inconsistent with the PUD's vision of fostering a walkable environment for both
current and future residents in the surrounding area such as auto title loan
establishments, retail of automobile parts and supplies, gas stations, hospitals,
single-family residential, automobile service stations, veterinarian hospitals
and offices, and window glass installation shop.
8. Development Standards
The following is a table of proposed development standards for the project.
a. Density (Maximum) 315 Dwelling Units
73 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre
b. Minimum Lot Width/Depth No Minimum
c. Minimum Building Setbacks
North (Bell Road) 15 feet from Property Line
West (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
East (71st Street) 20 feet from Back of Curb
South (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
d. Building Height (Maximum) 83 feet
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
e. Building Height Restrictions
Zone 1: Within 140 feet of R1- 0 feet
8 Zoning District Boundary
Zone 2: 140 to 178 feet from 46 feet
R1-8 Zoning District Boundary
Zone 3: 178 to 305 feet from 58 feet
R1-8 Zoning District Boundary
Zone 4: 305 to 520 feet from 83 feet
R1-8 Zoning District Boundary
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 65% of Total Net Site Area
The PUD provides a step back design approach of the building to reduce the
sight visibility into the yards of the single-family residential neighborhood to the
west of this proposed development. As the building gets closer to the R1-8
single-family zoned properties the proposed building gets lower in height. The
maximum height of the building is 83 feet which is at the east end of the site.
This design approach also provides more variation and visual interest in the
architectural design of the building.
Source: Applicant’s PUD Narrative
Streetscape Standards
The streetscape standards exceed the requirements of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Bell Road Detached Sidewalk Width: 6 feet
Landscape Strip: Minimum 10 feet
landscape area between back of
curb and detached sidewalk.
Planting Standards: Minimum 2-inch
caliper trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings on
both sides of the sidewalk. Minimum
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree.
Minimum of 75% live coverage.
Sidewalk Tree Shade Coverage:
75%
71st Street (Private) Attached Sidewalk Width: 6 feet
Sidewalk Tree Shade Coverage:
75%
Minimum Landscape Standards
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
(Perimeter)
North (Bell Road) 15 feet from Property Line
West (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
East (71st Street) 20 feet from Back of Curb
South (Perimeter) 10 feet from Property Line
North (Bell Road) Landscaping Standards:
Minimum 2-inch caliper trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings. Minimum five
5-gallon shrubs per tree. Minimum of
75% live coverage.
West (Perimeter) Landscaping Standards:
Minimum 2-inch caliper trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings. Minimum five
5-gallon shrubs per tree. Minimum of
50% live coverage.
Pedestrian Walk: A minimum 5-foot-
wide pedestrian walk shall be
located within the landscape setback
for pedestrian circulation.
East (71st Street) Landscaping Standards:
Minimum 2-inch caliper trees,
planted 20 feet on center, or in
equivalent groupings. Minimum five
5-gallon shrubs per tree. Minimum of
50% live coverage.
South (Perimeter) Landscaping Standards: Minimum 2-
inch caliper trees, planted 20 feet on
center, or in equivalent groupings.
Minimum five 5-gallon shrubs per
tree. Minimum of 50% live coverage.
Pedestrian Walk: A minimum 5-foot-
wide pedestrian walk shall be
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
located within the landscape setback
for pedestrian circulation.
Common Open Space Minimum 15%
Parking Standards
The following table summarizes the parking standards. The number of the
vehicle parking spaces is different than the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
requirement of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit of any size unit. Electric vehicle,
bicycle parking and a drop-off/pick-up location are above what is required by
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance standards.
Minimum Parking Standards
Residents
Studio 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit
1-Bed & 2-Bed 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
3-Bed 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit
Unreserved Parking 0.5 spaces per required parking
space
Electric Vehicle Parking 5% EV Installed
5% EV Capable
Bicycle Parking 0.25 spaces per total dwelling unit,
maximum 50 spaces
0.05 guest spaces per total dwelling
unit, maximum 50 spaces
Drop-Off/Pick-Up A drop-off/pick-up area for residents
and guests shall be provided near
the entrance of the parking garage.
Fences/Walls
The PUD notes fences and walls shall comply with the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, except a new site wall is not required to be constructed along the
west or south property lines when an adjacent property’s site wall or building
wall is located within 15 feet of the property line.
Shade
The PUD shade standards are to provide a minimum of 75 percent for all
public sidewalks, 75 percent for private pathways, and 50 percent for all
private resident amenity areas. This will encourage shade which goes above
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance requirements. Per Stipulation No. 1.b, shade
may be achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
9. Design Guidelines
To ensure quality building and design many guidelines have been
incorporated within the PUD. These guidelines include utilizing a variety of
materials; a specific color palette; providing limitations on the length of blank
walls; adding an art element; requiring private balconies and patios for 80
percent of the units; and screening of mechanical and electrical equipment,
and the parking garage.
The design of the building shows a step-down approach from east to west
providing additional interest to the architecture and sensitivity by providing
privacy for the neighboring residential properties.
The project will include private amenities for its residents. These amenities
may include a club room, yoga and fitness center, outdoor seating area(s),
dog run/park, yoga/event lawn, secured resident walking path, and a
swimming pool and/or spa with a lounge deck, seating node(s) and an activity
lawn.
10. Signs
All signage shall comply with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705.
A Comprehensive Sign Plan may be processed in accordance with Section
705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance. Stipulation Nos. 1.c and 1.e require that
signs be in compliance with the Sign Section of the Zoning Ordinance, any
variations will need to go through the standard process.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
11. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix
Plan. The Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage
throughout the City to improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can
address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran
vegetation, and prevent health complications related to prolonged exposure to
heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan provides numerous strategies to increase
shade including expanding and maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree
code enforcement, and developing shade stipulations in rezoning cases. The
Development Narrative requires a minimum 75 percent shade on all public
sidewalks, enhanced shade on internal pathways, and larger tree sizes within
the landscape areas between the back of curb and sidewalk. These standards
exceed the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements.
12. 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 promote safety
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
and connectivity for all users, the PUD proposes standards of a detached
sidewalk along Bell Road and wider sidewalks and pedestrian paths. Also
there is a pedestrian transit link being provided which is an 8-foot-wide
pedestrian pathway providing direct access between the building and the
transit bus pad and this path will be shaded and consist of decorative
materials.
13. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014
to guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure.
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and
long-term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety
of Destinations. The Development Narrative includes bicycle and electric
bicycle parking provisions, and a bicycle repair “fix it station” in the
development.
14. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for additional housing units. The proposed development supports the
Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by
contributing to a variety housing types that will address the supply shortage at
a more rapid pace while using underutilized land in a more sustainable
fashion.
15. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero-waste city, as part of the City’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial,
and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The PUD narrative
states recycling services will be provided for tenants.
16. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire
for better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in
vehicle operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the
public are signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
many automobile manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully
electric offerings within the coming decade. This Plan contains policy
initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled with more EVs, charging
infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a roadmap for a five-step
plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by
2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of electric vehicles
through workplace, business, and multifamily charging infrastructure
recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV charging
infrastructure. The Development Narrative contains standards for a minimum
of five percent of the required vehicle parking spaces to be EV Installed
infrastructure and five percent EV Capable Infrastructure, and 10 percent of
the required bicycle parking spaces to include standard electrical receptacles
for electric bicycle charging capabilities.
17. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan.
The Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse
gas emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and
community activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This
plan contains policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation,
waste management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2
(Water), Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix
Green Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative
Stormwater Management to benefit the environment, promote water
conservation, reduce urban heat, improve the public health, and create
additional green spaces. This goal is addressed in the Design Guidelines
section of the PUD Narrative which requires green infrastructure techniques
for stormwater management be implemented.
18. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures
for New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution
addresses the future water consumption of new development to support one
of the City’s Five Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to -
Build the Sustainable Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New
Development policy includes direction to develop standards for consideration
as stipulations for all rezoning cases that will address best practices related to
water usage in nine specific categories. This is addressed in the Design
Guidelines and Sustainability sections of the PUD Narrative. Stipulation No.
1.d addresses a discrepancy in the Narrative to revise the number of years to
participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup program.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
19. At the time the staff report was written, staff received four letters in opposition
to the project. Concerns include a loss of privacy and sense of security, the
proposal being out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and its impacts
on property values.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
20. City of Scottsdale Aviation Department
The City of Scottsdale Aviation Department requested the airport disclosure
stipulation, the FAA Form 7460 with an FAA response of “No Hazard
Determination”, and have the developer grant and record an avigation
easement for the site. These requests are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2
through 4.
21. Street Transportation Department
The Street Transportation Department requested the following:
• An eight-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway consisting of decorative
material such as brick, pavers or alternative material providing a direct
pedestrian linkage to the adjacent transit stop.
• All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way be
undergrounded.
• That all streets within and adjacent to the development, be constructed
with all required elements, including meeting ADA requirements.
These are addressed within the PUD Narrative and in Stipulation Nos. 5 and
6.
OTHER
22. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically
sensitive. If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office
determines the site and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if
no previous archaeological projects have been conducted within this project
area, it is recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area
be conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist
must make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix
Archaeologist. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
construction, all ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius
of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified
immediately and allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7 through 9.
23. 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
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
has been added to require the form be completed and submitted prior to final
site plan approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
24. 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 proposed General Plan Land
Use Map designation in companion case GPA-PV-1-25-2 and is compatible
with the transitioning land use pattern in the surrounding area.
2. The proposed development will add to the mix of housing options within the
Desert Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that support
efforts from various plans and initiatives, including the Shade Phoenix Plan,
the Complete Streets Guiding Principles, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master
Plan, the Housing Phoenix Plan, Zero Waste PHX, the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan, and the Phoenix Climate Action Plan.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent
with the Development Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by
the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph
“Within the outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm trees
may count towards required shade" and replace it with “Shade may be
achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Pages 19, F1: Permitted Signs: Delete all and replace with “All signage shall
comply with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705. A
Comprehensive Sign Plan may be processed in accordance with Section
705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance.”
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
d. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update
the number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.”
e. Exhibit 14: Remove the exhibit on the last page titled “Conceptual Signage
Plan”.
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior
to final site plan approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded,
adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with the affected
utility companies for their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
7. 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.
Staff Report: Z-41-25-2
October 26, 2025
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Matteo Moric
October 26, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped October 20, 2025
Conceptual Elevations date stamped October 20, 2025 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped October 20, 2025
Community Correspondence (10 pages)
Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD Development Narrative date stamped October
20, 2025
R1-18
R-3A*
Z-61-96
R1-14 C-2*
Z-60-96
SCOTTSDALE
C-2*
BELL Z-70-97
RD
CITY OF
LPS RD
PHE
69TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
ST
HW PUD*
AY
71ST Z-12-21
68T LN ST
KELTON
R1-8 IND.PK.* C-2*
Z-139-86
Z-82-79 Z-167-87
KINGS AV E
CP/GCP PCD*
EN RD Z-11-C-75
KATHLE
L
69TH P
¯ Miles
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
GREENWAY RD
Z-41-25-2
0 0.03 0.06 0.12
THUNDERBIRD RD
CACTUS RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE SHEA BLVD
SCOTTSDALE RD
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
16TH ST 40TH ST
24TH ST TATUM BLVD
32ND ST 56TH ST
64TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
FROM: C-2 ( 4.32 ac.)
DATE:
4/24/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-41-25-2 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
PUD ( 4.32 ac.)
4.32 Acres QS 36-44 M-12
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
C-2 62 75
PUD 315 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 545
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-41-25-2.aprx
R1-18
R-3A*
Z-61-96
R1-14 C-2*
Z-60-96
SCOTTSDALE
C-2*
BELL Z-70-97
RD
CITY OF
LPS RD
PHE
69TH
SCOTTSDALE RD
ST
HW PUD*
AY
71ST Z-12-21
68T LN ST
KELTON
R1-8 IND.PK.* C-2*
Z-139-86
Z-82-79 Z-167-87
KINGS AV E
CP/GCP PCD*
EN RD Z-11-C-75
KATHLE
L
69TH P
¯ Miles
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
GREENWAY RD
Z-41-25-2
0 0.03 0.06 0.12
THUNDERBIRD RD
CACTUS RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE SHEA BLVD
SCOTTSDALE RD
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
16TH ST 40TH ST
24TH ST TATUM BLVD
32ND ST 56TH ST
64TH ST
REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Snell & Wilmer, LLP
FROM: C-2 ( 4.32 ac.)
DATE:
4/24/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-41-25-2 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
PUD ( 4.32 ac.)
4.32 Acres QS 36-44 M-12
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
C-2 62 75
PUD 315 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 546
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-41-25-2.aprx
LOT COVERAGE SITE AREA
MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE: 75% ASSESSOR PARCEL # APN 215-43-323
PROVIDED: 65%
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 102,003 SF TOTAL SITE GROSS AREA ±188,693 SF, ± 4.32 AC
BUILDING FOOTPRINT ÷ NET LOT SF TOTAL SITE NET AREA ±156,928 SF, ± 3.603 AC
(102,003 SF ÷ 156,928 SF = 65%)
OPEN SPACE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MINIMUM REQUIRED: 5% OF GROSS AREA THIS PROJECT IS A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT
(0.05 x 188,693 SF = 9,435 SF) THE SWC OF BELL ROAD AND 71ST STREET. PROJECT
C.A.P PROPOSED: 15% OF GROSS AREA CONSISTS OF 315 UNITS ON 4.32 GROSS ACRES. BUILDING
. CA (0.15 x 188,693 SF = 28,303 SF) WILL CONSIST OF MAX. 7 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL WRAPPING
N AL 6 LEVELS OF PARKING. UNITS CONSIST OF STUDIO,
1-BEDROOM, 2-BEDROOM, AND 3-BEDROOM UNITS.
PARKING ( 8.5' X 18' )
GENERAL BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS:
REQUIRED PARKING: PROPOSED USE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCIES:
S STUDIO 1.3 P.S./D.U. RESIDENTIAL: R-2 TYPE I/IIIA CONSTRUCTION
1 1BR/1BA 1.5 P.S./D.U PARKING STRUCTURE: S-2 TYPE I CONSTRUCTION
2 2BR/2BA 1.5 P.S./D.U. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13
BELL 3 3BR/2BA 2.0 P.S./D.U.
ZONING
ASDASD
ROA
EXISTING D EXISTING: C-2 Z-70-97/ Z-139-86 / Z-167-87
16 REQUIRED UNRESERVED PARKING:
BUS PROPOSED: PUD
STOP UNRESERVED 0.5 P.S. PER REQUIRED P.S. VILLAGE: PARADISE VALLEY
ASDASD
DENSITY
8'-0" SIDEWALK EASEMENT ACCESSIBLE - REQUIRED PARKING:
TO BE PROVIDED PUD
FRONT . NDSC RESERVED 0.02 P.S./D.U. MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY 75 DU/AC (GROSS)
15'-0 A
" 10'-0 1 .U.E SETB PE UNRESERVED 0.02 P.S./D.U. PUD ACREAGE:
8 " ACK
ILDIN
G 4.332 AC (GROSS)
8' P SETB
(+56'-0")
2A 5-STORY 1B ACK PROPOSED 315 D.U. 73 D.U. / AC (GROSS)
RESIDENTIAL 13 6'-0
" 15' LA 15' BU
UP
1K 8'-0 PROVIDED EV PARKING:
12 49'-10" " EXISTING LOW
ELEC. WALL TO BE EV PARKING 5% : 0.05 PER PROVIDED P.S.
UP
S NORTH COURT REMOVED BUILDING HEIGHT
EV READY PARKING 5%: 0.05 PER PROVIDED P.S.
15'-0 2 MAXIMUM ALLOWED: 85'
(Open Space) 8 " 15'-0
REAR
TRASH 2C
5-STORY (+56'-0") " PROPOSED: (7 STORIES) ±83'
FRONT
3 COMPACTOR 1B 1B
RESIDENTIAL 13
BICYCLE PARKING: BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITION:
REAR FRONT EAST COURT
(Open Space) REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING: 0.25 P.S. PER UNIT, "THE VERTICAL DISTANCE MEASURED FROM THE HIGHER OF
REAR FRONT 1C MAXIMUM OF 50 SPACES THE NATURAL GRADE OR THE FINISHED GRADE LEVEL
IND.PK. 1D 1D PROVIDED BICYCLE PARKING: 50 P.S. ESTABLISHED BY THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
REAR FRONT
1D
7-STORY REQUIRED GUEST BICYCLE PARKING: 0.05 P.S. PER UNIT, DEPARTMENT TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE ROOF SURFACE
UP
R1-8 Z-82-79 1B 1D S 1D (5 OVER 2)
ELEV CLUBHOUSE MAXIMUM OF 50 SPACES OF FLAT ROOFS; OR THE MEAN HEIGHT BETWEEN EAVES AND
4 1D RESIDENTIAL 7
+77'-4" /LEASING
130'-0" 10'-0" PROVIDED GUEST BICYCLE PARKING: 16 P.S. RIDGE OR GABLE, GAMBREL OR HIP ROOF."
20'-0 INCLUDES 2 PS FOR
" AY)
5-STORY
10' BUILDING 10'-0" 1D S 1D EV EV
ST. ELECTRIC CHARGING SETBACKS - BUILDING PROV.
(+56'-0") EV EV 20'-0
SETBACK VENT ELEV. " ADW
2C RESIDENTIAL 20' BU
ILDIN NORTH SETBACK (BELL RD.) 15' FROM PROPERTY LINE
10' LANDSCAPE 10'-0" 1D 1D LOADING AREA:
PUD TE RO SETBA G
CK WEST SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK EV
20' LA
NDSC REQUIRED LOADING AREA: 1 LOADING AREA FOR
(PROPOSED) 24'-0" A EAST SETBACK (71ST ST.) 20' FROM BACK OF CURB
EV PORTE 15 SETBA PE EACH 150 UNITS
4-STORY CK SOUTH SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM PROPERTY LINE
COCHERE
(PRIVA
(+45'-4") PROVIDED LOADING AREA: 2 LOADING AREAS
W 71
106'-11"
A RESIDENTIAL 6-STORY PARKING EV A
ST
2A 25'-0" STRUCTURE WITH 25'-0" SETBACKS - LANDSCAPE PROV.
2A POOL TERRACE SOLID WASTE CALCULATIONS:
1F ABOVE (LEVEL 7 EV 5 3 NORTH LANDSCAPE SETBACK (BELL RD.) 15' FROM
SOUTH COURT +65'-4") SIDE GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS:
SIDE PROPERTY LINE
11'-0" 18'-0" 1. REQUIRED CAPACITY FOR REFUSE IS 0.5 C.Y. PER D.U.
(Open Space) EV WEST LANDSCAPE SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM
2A EV 7-STORY
C-2 PER WEEK PROPERTY LINE
46'-10" 1F 8'-6" 5'-0" 24'-0" (5 OVER 2) 2. SERVICED TWICE A WEEK
2A VENT RESIDENTIAL 14 Z-139-86 EAST LANDSCAPE SETBACK (71ST ST.) 20' FROM
+77'-4" 3. COMPACTION RATIO IS 3:1 BACK OF CURB
EV EV Z-167-87 315 D.U. x 0.5 C.Y. = 158 C.Y.
18'-0" SOUTH LANDSCAPE SETBACK (PERIMETER) 10' FROM
4 158 C.Y. / 2 = 79C.Y. PROPERTY LINE
2A 2
ELEV 79 C.Y. / 3 = (COMPACTION RATIO) 26 C.Y.
1D 1D 3
6-STORY (+65'-4")
COMPACTOR CAPACITY REQUIRED IS 26 C.Y. BIN
1D BIKE STORAGE PROPOSED UNIT COUNT 315
UP
2A 2ARESIDENTIAL
2A 1C TRASH & REPAIR
1D S 1D HOLDING
1D
1B
5-STORY (+56'-0") 10'-0" 10'-0"
RESIDENTIAL DOG
1G 2A 1J 1J 1A PARK 10'-0" 10' BUILDING REAR
SETBACK
10'-0" 10'-0" 10' LANDSCAPE
10' BUILDING
GROSS AREA SUMMARY EXISTING WALL C-2 SETBACK SETBACK
8 4
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
LEVEL 1 : 64,504 sf Z-139-86
10' LANDSCAPE
LEVEL 2 : 66,140 sf 10' BUILDING
Z-167-87
LEVEL 3 : 69,519 sf IND.PK. 0" 20' 40' 80'
LEVEL 4 : 69,551 sf SETBACK SETBACK
Z-82-79
LEVEL 5 : 62,559 sf SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
LEVEL 6 : 27,886 sf
GRAPHIC KEY LEGEND
LEVEL 7 : 29,003 sf
1. 10' LANDSCAPE STRIP
4-STORY RESIDENTIAL 1. FIRE TURNING RADIUS
TOTAL 389,162 sf 2. 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK
35' - INSIDE
Includes 10,108 sf of conditioned Pool Terrace Amenity Space (Type I Construction) at Level 7 3. LOADING/ MOVE-IN AREAS
55' - OUTSIDE C.A.P
4. FIRE HOSE PULL 350' MAX. 5-STORY RESIDENTIAL . CA
SCOTTSDALE RD.
NAL
Gross Area includes balcony & patio areas associated with units, corridors, stairs, elevators, and common amenity areas 5. PODIUM OVER 2-STORY PORTE COCHERE
2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING
(Clubhouse, Leasing, Mail, Fitness, etc.) 6. RIDE-SHARE DROP-OFF/ PICK-UP 6-STORY RESIDENTIAL
7. ENTRY PLAZA BELL
3. TRASH TURNING RADIUS SITE RD.
LEVEL 1 CLUBHOUSE AREA : 4,157 sf Include in Level 1 Gross Area 8. STEEL VIEW FENCE (6') 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL 28' 6'' - INSIDE 68TH ST.
GARAGE FOOTPRINT : 27,086 sf Assume parking structure is precast concrete construction 9. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC)
44' - OUTSIDE
LEVEL 3 PODIUM AREA : 27,687 sf Assume 18" thick post-tensioned slab supported independently with concrete 10. FIRE HYDRANT
columns and isolated from parking structure with expansion joint 11. FIRE RISER
4. EV EV PARKING PARADISE LN.
12. TRANSFORMERS
NSRF (Unit Net Rentable Area) : 271,622 sf 13. RAMADA EV (F)
5. EV READY PARKING
14. SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE TYP. KIVA NO: 01-21164
EFFICIENCY : 70% 15. GUEST BICYCLE PARKING SDEV: 0101827
16. DECORATIVE PAVERS PAPP: 2405316
VICINITY MAP/NTS REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES CONCEPTUAL
PUD SUBMITTAL #3
09-29-25 SITE PLAN
September 29, 2025
A2
24-2043-00
A F I G B I D E C B G H C A D B F F H H
83'-0" TOP OF
ROOF TYPE IIIA
OVER TYPE I E A B G C E G B C A D F A F
66'-0" 7
55'-4" 6
44'-8" 5
34'-0" 4
23'-4" 3
12'-8" 2
0'-0" 1
Art Mural (Exempt From Sign Ordinance Requirements)
Final Design to be Determined
NORTH ELEVATION A STUCCO 01
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
B STUCCO 02
C STUCCO 03
D STUCCO 03
A C F J B I F A D A C A D B E G A G D A F E E D A G F E G C B C
E SIMULATED WOOD SIDING
83'-0" TOP OF ROOF
ACM EXTERNAL WALL
TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE I F PANEL
7 66'-0" CONCRETE MASONRY
G UNIT 01
6 55'-4"
CONCRETE MASONRY
H UNIT 02
5 44'-8"
STOREFRONT WINDOWS
I AND DOORS
4 34'-0"
RESIDENTIAL VINYL
J WINDOWS
3 23'-4"
2 12'-8"
1 0'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
0" 8' 16' 32'
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
KIVA NO: 01-21164
SDEV: 0101827
PAPP: 2405316
REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES PUD SUBMITTAL #3 ELEVATIONS
09-29-25
September 29, 2025
A16
24-2043-00
B G H A F E I B C A D E A C E A C B C D A F I
83'-0" TOP OF ROOF
TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE I
A B C G A D E A C G B J A E
7 66'-0"
6 55'-4"
5 44'-8"
4 34'-0"
3 23'-4"
2 12'-8"
1 0'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION A STUCCO 01
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
B STUCCO 02
C STUCCO 03
H E A C B E F A B D E G B C J H C A J C J B
D STUCCO 03
E SIMULATED WOOD SIDING
83'-0" TOP OF ROOF
TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE I
B D G C C ACM EXTERNAL WALL
F PANEL
7 66'-0"
CONCRETE MASONRY
G UNIT 01
6 55'-4"
CONCRETE MASONRY
5 44'-8" H UNIT 02
4 34'-0" STOREFRONT WINDOWS
I AND DOORS
3 23'-4" RESIDENTIAL VINYL
J WINDOWS
2 12'-8"
1 0'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16"=1'
0" 8' 16' 32'
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
KIVA NO: 01-21164
SDEV: 0101827
PAPP: 2405316
REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES PUD SUBMITTAL #3 ELEVATIONS
09-29-25
September 29, 2025
A17
24-2043-00
BELL
ROA
D
(PRIV T STREE
A TE R T
71S OAD
WA Y
)
SEVENTH LEVEL LANDSCAPE
SCALE: 1"=40'
C.A.P
. CA
SCOTTSDALE RD.
NAL
0" 15' 30' 60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
BELL
SITE RD .
68TH ST.
KIVA NO: 01-21164
SDEV: 0101827
PARADISE LN. PAPP: 2405316
REZONE:
ZONING MAP: M12
QUARTER SECT: Q36-44
VICINITY MAP/NTS
TODD + RESIDENCES AT SCOTTSDALE CROSSING
PHOENIX, AZ
ASSOCIATES CONCEPTUAL
PUD SUBMITTAL #3
LANDSCAPE PLAN L1
September 29, 2025
24-2043-00
July 31, 2025
To: Snell & Wilmer and Case Managers
My name is Shaina Swimmer, and I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the
proposed zoning change and residential development at Scottsdale Crossing. I respectfully
request that this letter be added to the official case file.
This project proposes to change the land use designation from industrial/commercial to
residential, an action I believe is unjust, detrimental to the city’s long-term interests, and
harmful to neighboring homeowners’ privacy and detrimental to property value.
1. Not the Highest and Best Use of the Land
This property’s highest and best use is commercial, not residential. A thoughtfully designed
commercial space, such as shops, restaurants, or locally owned businesses, would promote
economic activity, support small business owners, create jobs, and generate ongoing tax revenue
for the city of Phoenix. A rental apartment complex offers no meaningful return to the
community or municipal infrastructure and sacrifices the commercial potential for temporary
housing solutions.
2. Severe Privacy Violations
I live at 6907 E Phelps Rd, Scottsdale, AZ 85254, directly bordering to the west side of the
proposed development. This plan would impact not just my home, but the privacy of at many
homes along the cul de sacs. The proposed balconies and windows will have direct line of sight
into multiple backyards and homes, stripping away any sense of privacy. This is a violation of
our privacy rights and will permanently alter our quality of life and investments.
3. Technology-Based Privacy & Safety Concerns
In a digital era where surveillance technology is increasingly accessible, I have serious concerns
about the possibility of unauthorized recordings, spying, or data misuse from residents in
elevated positions. This is not a hypothetical concern, it's a realistic risk that infringes on our
expectation of safety and privacy in our own homes. Some renter could be spying and plotting to
rob a house or worse. This all goes back to the privacy concern that the balconies and large
windows are directly facing multiple backyards such as my own.
4. Detrimental to Property Value
As a realtor, I can tell you firsthand that placing a residential complex directly behind any
property is a detrimental decrease of property value. Privacy is a key value in real estate and that
value will be stripped away. This doesn’t just impact my property; it diminishes the long-term
investment potential of every neighboring home. Rezoning to residential in this location is a
short-sighted decision that undermines homeowner equity and weakens the city’s real estate
foundation.
5. Public Safety Threats
There are numerous police & government cases where balconies and elevated access points have
been misused by individuals with harmful intent. Allowing renters elevated, direct visual access
into our daily lives opens the door to criminal behavior, including robbery, stalking, or worse. As
a resident, I no longer feel safe with the threat of such visibility looming over our homes. This is
a public safety hazard and misuse of privacy.
6. Closing Thoughts
I want to be clear: I am not against development. I am against this specific development in this
specific location, where it directly threatens safety, privacy, public safety and long-term
economic value for our community.
I understand that Snell & Wilmer has an interest in contributing to the growth of our city, and I
appreciate their intention to bring development to the area. However, given the significant
concerns around privacy, property value, and public safety, placing trees directly in our
backyards, and shifting the burden of lifelong maintenance, trimming, watering, and increased
utility costs onto homeowners, is not a meaningful or beneficial solution.
Using the space for temporary “luxury” housing, by contrast, does little to serve long-term
community needs. As a local realtor, I can confirm that two-bedroom units in this area renting for
around $3,000 are not considered luxury; that price point is simply the baseline for standard
rentals in this market.
Please confirm that this letter has been added to the case file. Thank you for your time reading.
Sincerely,
Shaina Swimmer
6907 E Phelps Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
From: Natasa Obradovic
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Re: Z-41-25-2: 7077E Bell road
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:53:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr. Moric
Thank you for your response and for placing my comments on record.
I want to take this opportunity to emphasize how important it is for us to preserve the
character, peace, and privacy of our neighborhood. This is a family-centered
community, and many of us moved here specifically because of the safety, tranquility,
and the sense of privacy that our homes currently offer.
The proposed development poses a serious concern for our families. It directly threatens the
privacy of our backyards and living spaces — the places where we raise our children, gather
with loved ones, and unwind in peace. We feel strongly that the integrity of our neighborhood
and the well-being of its residents must remain a top priority in any planning decisions.
We ask that the voices of the families who live here every day be taken seriously and
given full consideration during all upcoming hearings and reviews.
Please keep me informed of the hearing schedule once it becomes available. I appreciate your
time and ongoing communication.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 8:32 AM Matteo Moric
Hello Ms. Raden,
I will place your comments in the file for the record and it will accompany the staff report.
The public hearings have not been scheduled yet including the Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee, Planning Commission and City Council.
Please let me know if there is anything else you may need.
Thank you,
Matteo Moric, AICP
Planner II* Village
Planning and Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
matteo.moric@phoenix.gov
(602) 261-8235
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Natasa Obradovic
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Z-41-25-2:7077E Bell road
Dear Mr. Moric I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to express my concern regarding the proposed construction project in our neighborhood. I understand my neighbor Diane has already contacted you on this matter, and I share her
Dear Mr. Moric
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to express my concern regarding the
proposed construction project in our neighborhood. I understand my neighbor Diane has
already contacted you on this matter, and I share her sentiments entirely — we are not in
support of any new buildings being developed in this area.
This neighborhood was chosen by many of us, including my family, specifically for its
peaceful, private, and residential character. Any new development, particularly one that
brings additional buildings and residents, would significantly impact the sense of privacy
and security that we value.
Personally, I am directly affected by the proposed construction, as the new buildings would
overlook my backyard and even the second-floor windows of my home, including our
bathroom. This creates a real and concerning invasion of our family’s privacy.
I would appreciate being kept informed of any developments or meetings related to this
project. If there is a better time to connect or if you need any additional information from me
prior to a formal discussion, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Natasa Raden ( maiden Obradovic)
Proper 6911 E Phelps road Scottsdale AZ 85254
From: Diane G
To: Matteo Moric
Cc: Natasa Obradovic
Subject: Fwd: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd
Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:06:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I have reached out to our city councilman several times regarding concerns with this proposed
rezoning. Unfortunately he is unresponsive, but now I will reach out to the City. I am a
thousand percent against this rezoning. The residents of this proposed project will literally
look directly into my back yard. This is unacceptable.
Diane Griffith
Begin forwarded message:
From: Diane G
Date: July 6, 2025 at 9:57:48 PM MST
To: jim@jimwaring.com
Subject: Fwd: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd
Mr. Waring:
I wrote to you on 6/13/25, and again on 6/29/25 with no response.
Please understand again I’m not dropping this problem. This
proposed development is apartments that will look directly in my
back yard, 150 feet from our loved neighborhood. The site is zoned
2-story commercial. I researched this prior to purchasing our home.
Now it’s proposed to being 9-story residential apartments. This is
unacceptable. This is my 3rd time reaching out with no reply. I am
losing faith, but please know I have a neighborhood backing me. We
all feel the same. This is not zoned for an apartment complex.
Diane
From: Diane G
Date: June 29, 2025 at 7:45:55 AM MST
To: jim@jimwaring.com
Subject: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd
I wrote to you on 6/13/25 with no response. Please understand I’m
not dropping this. I have lived in this neighborhood since January
2002. This proposed development is a bunch of apartments that will
look in my back yard, directly. I researched the zoning prior to
moving to my current house, and the site is zoned 2-story
commercial. Now it’s proposed to being 9-story residential. NO. I am
reaching out to you again, and invite you to spend some time in our
back yard, our oasis that will no longer be private if this re-zoning
goes through. Please reach out to me to discuss further.
Diane Griffith
602-831-7619
From: Deborah Harris
To: Matteo Moric
Subject: Re: Z-41-25-2: 7077 E Bell Rd -NO
Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:33:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Thank you - I am unable to attend May 19 as I will be out of town but rallying the neighbors
to attend. Neighbors worked up about this invasion of privacy. We purchase cul-de-sac homes
for a REASON
PRIVACY
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2025, at 7:47 AM, Matteo Moric
wrote:
Thank you for the email, Ms. Harris.
I will place your email in the records with the City Rezoning file which gets
included in the staff report.
Have a nice day!
Matteo Moric, AICP
Planner II* Village
Planning and Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
matteo.moric@phoenix.gov
(602) 261-8235
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Deborah Harris
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:54 AM
To: mdellow@swlaw.com
Cc: Matteo Moric
Subject: 7077 E Bell Rd -NO
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 7077 E Bell Rd To Whom It May Concern I am writing to formally express my deep concern regarding the proposed seven-level development adjacent to my home. As a resident of this neighborhood
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 7077 E
Bell Rd
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing to formally express my deep concern regarding the
proposed seven-level development adjacent to my home.
As a resident of this neighborhood for over 30 years, I am
extremely distressed by the significant impact this project will
have on the privacy, enjoyment, and value of my property. The
proposed structure will directly overlook my backyard and pool
area, which have always been private spaces for my family. The
idea of losing that privacy to a multi-level building is not only
intrusive but completely unacceptable.
Beyond the personal impact, a development of this scale is out of
character with the surrounding neighborhood and risks negatively
affecting property values for long-standing residents such as
myself. I urge you to reconsider the scale and design of this
project in favor of a more respectful and context-sensitive
approach. 2 levels is bad enough and the growth in this area is
ridiculous. You all have plenty of space to freaking build
something besides in my backyard. How would you like laying in
your backyard pool with seven stories staring down at you like a
hotel when you have a $700,000 house??!!! And foremost my
property value, which as a widow is all I have left and you’re
gonna take it away!
I will be seeking advice on all available planning and legal
avenues to challenge this development and will be engaging with
council, neighbors, and relevant authorities to oppose it unless
significant changes are made.
I hope you will take these concerns seriously and welcome any
opportunity for open dialogue on how this issue might be
resolved in a way that respects this beautiful neighborhood.
Mrdkharris
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Date of VPC Meeting November 3, 2025
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with deletions
VPC Vote 7-5
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and companion Planned
Unit Development (PUD) rezoning case. Mr. Moric stated these cases would be heard
together. Mr. Moric shared a map identifying the location and size of the subject site and
provided background and contextual information about the requests.
Mr. Moric noted that although the site is less than 10 acres in size, the exception
regarding any residential request in a designated industrial or commerce park area is
triggered, thus a minor General Plan Amendment is required. Mr. Moric stated the
findings and the staff recommendation of approval for the General Plan Amendment
request.
Mr. Moric then presented the zone change request and shared a map of the
surrounding zoning, identified the proposed development standards, the site plan,
building elevations and summarized the design guidelines. Mr. Moric also stated staff
received four letters of opposition regarding the proposal and noted the community
concerns. Mr. Moric summarized the staff findings and stated staff recommended
approval subject to stipulations. Mr. Moric then summed up the recommended
stipulations and the next steps for the proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 561
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, reminded the Committee that he presented this
case previously for information only. Mr. Wood stated the site is just west of the
intersection of Scottsdale Road and Bell Road. Mr. Wood said immediately east of the
site was a CVS Pharmacy and at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road was a
previously approved PUD. Mr. Wood explained there was a mini-storage warehouse
site directly west of the subject site and next to that was a single-family residential
subdivision. Mr. Wood noted some additional context that hotels were located south of
the subject site, and further south was the Kierland area and east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood said one of the questions which was raised at the previous meeting was
regarding 71st Street and he reminded the Committee that it is a private drive shared by
all the property owners that are adjacent to it and Mr. Wood emphasized it is not a city
street. Mr. Wood said all the traffic from the proposal moves off 71st Street and
explained the movement and median breaks in the area. Mr. Wood said the only reason
people would travel south on 71st Street is if they are going to the gas station or
traveling south down Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said the site was never built as
industrial but that is what the General Plan is showing it designated as, so they are now
requesting a General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Residential 15+ dwelling units
per acre and a rezone from C-2 to PUD. Mr. Wood stated the conceptual site plan
proposes 315 dwelling units. Mr. Wood explained he loved the site plan and building
elevations as most recent developments seem to be boxes and this has lots of
movement and articulation to create visual interest in the architecture which will create a
special place. Mr. Wood said it would have a wrap parking structure, where the units
wrap around the structure and there would be parking on each floor. Mr. Wood indicated
he lives in Optima Camelback in the Old Town Scottsdale area, where the car parking is
underground and everything must come up and down such as groceries. Mr. Wood said
the building utilizes a step-down approach for the height to reduce as it moves west
closer to the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood shared information related to nearby sites such as the Manor Scottsdale at
13220 North Scottsdale Road, which was the old L.A. Fitness site where they proposed
a four- and five-story development next to single family residences. Mr. Wood explained
that they initially had lots of opposition but had worked with neighbors to ensure they
were satisfied as they had no opposition at the hearing.
Mr. Wood showed another site which was the Kierland II Office Building at 16260 North
71st Street which was 56 feet tall from the single-family residential property lines 160
feet away, and 70 feet tall, 220 feet away from the single-family residences.
Mr. Wood explained the proposal is lushly landscaped, with landscaping between the
curb and sidewalk, and between the sidewalk and the building. Mr. Wood said
everything has visual interest on the site plan and nothing is the same. Mr. Wood added
they are proposing balconies which are inverted and exterior oriented.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 562
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Mr. Wood then showed several conceptual renderings. Mr. Wood said the current C-2
zoning allowed approximately 325 more uses than the proposed multifamily residences.
Mr. Wood also shared a table breaking out the trips generated from the existing C-2
zoning to the proposed PUD zoning. Mr. Wood summed up that the proposal would
have far less traffic than the existing zoning allowed. Mr. Wood said the good news is
traffic can’t get to the single-family residences to the west so there would be no cut-
through traffic there.
Mr. Wood asked not to have the staff recommended signage stipulations and to delete
those.
Mr. Wood said they worked very closely with the neighborhood to the west. Mr. Wood
showed a community outreach map which identified where support came from. Mr.
Wood said they received 170 letters in support, 120 statements of support (verbal) and
127 neutral statements. Mr. Wood then shared a map showing which properties had
previously opposed the project but were actively collaborating towards screening
solutions, and those previously opposed and non-responsive.
Questions from Committee
Robert Goodhue asked why did the applicant not want to comply with the City of
Phoenix Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wood said there were two ways to have signs approved
with one being through the PUD rezone process and the other was to go through a
Comprehensive Sign Package application. Mr. Wood said it will take a lot of extra time
and would typically get approved unless they do something new and stupid. Mr.
Goodhue said normally developers go through the Comprehensive Sign process.
Diane Peterson had concerns with the sewer and traffic. Ms. Peterson was concerned
with the cumulative effect of building after building, “Optima after Optima”. Ms. Peterson
expressed concern with traffic going south on Scottsdale Road and said those who live
just south believed traffic is a nightmare. Ms. Peterson shared concerns about the
sewer work and capacity. Mr. Wood replied that the project’s civil engineer worked with
the City Water Services Division and there was enough sewer capacity. Ms. Peterson
added there are few egresses that go through Scottsdale Road and may not go through
the neighborhood on the west but would travel through other neighborhoods. Mr. Wood
said this project is so far north and near the freeway.
Larisa Balderrama asked about the height of the proposed building at the corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road and asked if it would be constructed. Mr. Wood noted it
was going to be 12 stories and that it would be built. Ms. Balderrama asked questions
about traffic movement and thought there may be some challenges to turn. Mr. Wood
stated there was not enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal.
Roy Wise noted he often travels north on Scottsdale Road and thinks traffic will back up
on Scottsdale Road and is concerned that to turn left on Bell Road will be impossible.
Mr. Wise thought turning right on Bell Road and traveling to the left turn lane to turn left
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 563
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
on Scottsdale Road will be a challenge. Marina Stender, the applicant’s traffic engineer
for the project, explained how trips will be generated from the proposal. Ms. Stender
stated the project would not warrant a traffic signal, otherwise, a traffic signal study
would have to be requested.
Ms. Peterson asked if the cumulative effect of all the buildings around the project were
taken into consideration. Ms. Stender said as traffic engineers they are required to
analyze all existing developments and approved development and layer their trips on
top of it to see how it affects the roadway network and the capacity of the roadway. Ms.
Stender noted that the project did not trigger a full traffic study for the City of Phoenix.
Ms. Stender said the existing right and left turn lane on Bell Road was already built
longer than the minimum required.
Anna Sepic asked for clarity regarding the traffic analysis and if it included the potential
C-2 uses which did not exist. Ms. Stender said they did the analysis on both current
and potential C-2 uses.
Patrice Marcolla asked about the traffic study and wondered why it did not trigger a
traffic impact analysis. Ms. Stender said a full traffic impact analysis is not required.
Vice Chair Amber Sommer asked if the lot at the corner of Scottsdale Road and Bell
Road was taken into account for the traffic study. Ms. Sepic stated that 251 units are to
come in at the corner. Ms. Stender said with that proposed project they would need to
do their own traffic study. Ms. Stender said currently that corner property is empty and
not generating any existing trips.
Robert Gubser asked if they recall if the project at Scottsdale Road and Bell Road will
use 71st Street as its main access. Mr. Wood said that 71st Street would be that
project’s secondary access and there would be two access points.
Ms. Sepic asked about the proposed zoning and if they were asking for a C-2 or PUD
and asked what the density is. Mr. Wood said the density is 73 dwelling units per acre
with 315 units.
Ms. Marcolla said the ITE traffic study does not seem specific to this site. Ms. Stender
said the ITE is the bible for traffic studies and there are different categories for studies.
Ms. Marcolla said this is specific for the ITE on all streets incoming and outgoing.
Mr. Wood said that the Street Transportation Department said before a site plan is
approved it would require a full Traffic Impact Study. Mr. Wood said they followed the
Street Transportation Department’s instruction.
Ms. Peterson asked if before site approval they will need to do a full traffic study. Mr.
Wood said yes.
Mr. Goodhue explained the applicant is going through a rezoning to approve the use
and once the use is approved their next step is to go through the site planning approval
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 564
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
process. Mr. Goodhue said the site plan comes after it is at the City Council level. Mr.
Goodhue stated in this case when looking at trip generation, the project will still need to
go through the TIA before site plan approval. Mr. Wood said after and if the proposal
gets Council approval, the applicant will need to get preliminary and final site plan
approval.
Ms. Marcolla wanted to know if there was an initial or historic traffic study for the site.
Mr. Wood was not certain but said the study would have been many years ago for a
two-story shopping center.
Kate Bauer said 1,300 residential units were being built near Mayo on the south side of
the 101 and provided information that there currently was 10.5% vacancy rate. Ms.
Bauer noted a lot of new apartments were coming and if the applicant saw a lot of
demand. Mr. Wood said he was not certain about the marketing, but his client was
planning to spend $80 to 90 million on which the lender would need to feel comfortable.
Justin Westfall, with Fifield Companies, said there were many units delivered across
the north Scottsdale and Phoenix market and there is a tremendous amount of job
growth occurring in the area. Mr. Westfall stated these include medical jobs, new
headquarters, Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) associated jobs and
with the combination of the projected job growth along with the housing shortage there
is a high demand for housing.
Ms. Peterson said her thought of the village concept is to have people live and work in
each village. Ms. Peterson was concerned these units would not be affordable and this
is an issue. Ms. Peterson added there is a shortage of housing for people who cannot
afford to live at the Optima’s such as teachers and fire fighters. Mr. Westfall said they
would provide a range from studios to three-bedroom units and most of the units would
be studios and one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there would be a variety of housing
options and would not be as expensive as Optima projects. Ms. Peterson also asked
about units for families who need more than one bedroom. Mr. Westfall said there were
also two- and three-bedroom units. Mr. Westfall said there would be different price
points depending on where the units are located in the building.
Mr. Goodhue said when the Mayo Hospital was coming into the City of Phoenix, City
staff had worked with developers in that area and there was astronomical growth and
this project could help accommodate people living close to their place of employment.
Mr. Wood said he recently worked on a rezoning case of 240 acres in the Paradise
Ridge area and it anticipates 5 to 6 million square feet of additional job generation and
said some construction started but it probably will be a 20-year build out. Mr. Wood
added that investors and lenders will need to be satisfied the project will work, otherwise
it would not be built.
Ms. Baldarrama asked if the units will be allowed to be used for short-term rentals. Mr.
Westfall noted that for most rentals of their properties are for a minimum of 12 to 18
months. Mr. Westfall said there is not usually a sublease situation where people can
rent the units as Airbnb’s.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 565
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
Ms. Baldarrama was concerned with housing shortages due to these short-term
rentals. Mr. Wood stated his developer clients do not usually allow Airbnb’s as they are
usually disruptive for other resident tenants.
Vice Chair Sommer noted the previous concern of privacy at the information meeting
and was wondering what they’d do to accommodate the west side residential neighbors.
Mr. Wood said they had reached an agreement with a few of the neighbors to raise
walls and install trees to alleviate concerns with privacy.
Mr. Gubser asked about pedestrian accessibility and if there was access on 71st
Street. Mr. Wood said there were sidewalks along 71st Street and there was a
detached sidewalk along Bell Road.
Mr. Gubser questioned if there was a pull-out for rideshares on 71st Street as he was
concerned about cars stacking. Mr. Westfall noted there was a porte-cochere where
rideshares could be pulled onto the site for drop-offs.
Public Comments
None.
Applicant Response
None.
Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.
Committee Member Roy Wise made a motion to recommend approval of Z-41-25-2,
per the staff recommendation, with deletions of Stipulation Nos. 1.c and 1.e. Committee
Member Regina Schmidt seconded the motion.
VOTE:
7-5; motion to approve Z-41-25-2, per the staff recommendation, with deletions passes
with Committee members Franks, Goodhue, Gubser, Hamra, Schmidt, Wise and
Sommer in favor; Committee members Balderrama, Bauer, Marcolla, Peterson, and
Sepic in opposition.
Recommended Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Residences at Scottsdale Crossing
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent
with the Development Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by
the following stipulations:
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 566
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph
“Within the outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm trees
may count towards required shade" and replace it with “Shade may be
achieved by structures or by landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Pages 19, F1: Permitted Signs: Delete all and replace with “All signage shall
comply with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705. A
Comprehensive Sign Plan may be processed in accordance with Section
705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance.”
d. c. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update
the number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup
program for a minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.”
e. Exhibit 14: Remove the exhibit on the last page titled “Conceptual Signage
Plan”.
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior
to final site plan approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded,
adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate with the affected
utility companies for their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 567
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
Staff recommends retaining the two deleted stipulations related to signage since there is
an established process for adopting a new Comprehensive Sign Plan, which requires a
use permit per Section 705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance. All signs will require a sign
permit, and there is a defined sign permit process in place for that purpose.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 568
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 6, 2025
Request From C-2
Request To PUD
Proposal Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Location Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of
Scottsdale Road and Bell Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-PV-1-25-2) and Item No. 4 (Z-41-25-2) are companion cases and were
heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, introduced the General Plan Amendment and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Rezoning cases and noted they were for informational purposes
only at this time. Mr. Moric then introduced the applicant and representative.
Applicant Presentation
Nick Wood, with Snell & Wilmer LLP, provided the context of the area surrounding the
proposal. Mr. Wood reminded the Committee he had been in front of them several years
prior for a case at the corner of Bell Road and Scottsdale Road. Mr. Wood said it was
for a high-rise apartment project that will break ground in 2026 with heights of up to 156
feet. Mr. Wood noted next to the subject site on the east is a CVS Pharmacy, to the
west is single-family subdivision, and ministorage and hotels are located to the south.
Mr. Wood added that further south is the Kierland area and to the east is the City of
Scottsdale.
Mr. Wood stated the subject site is currently zoned C-2 and they are proposing to
rezone to a PUD. Mr. Wood added the general plan designates the site as Industrial.
Mr. Wood showed the conceptual site plan which shows the proposed buildings facing
Bell Road and 71st Street. Mr. Wood indicated 71st Street is a private street which has
an easement to Bell Road. Mr. Wood explained how the project has its residential units
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 569
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2 – Information Only
wrap around the parking structure and noted the parking structure is as tall as the rest
of the building.
Mr. Wood stated they had been working with the neighboring residents to the west.
Mr. Wood added the conceptual plan shows movement and depth at the grade level.
Mr. Wood said there was a step-down design. Mr. Wood said the standard for the step
back design was created for the old LA Fitness site south of Kierland, where single-
family homes were on two sides and the design was where this 4-story convention was
used with similar distances to the balconies. Mr. Wood said this was used as the
guideline for the 4-story portion of the building to the property line of the single-family
residences.
Mr. Wood said staff supported lush landscaping and because the proposal has the
depth it enhances the landscape along Bell Road and as the landscaping circulates the
building itself. Mr. Wood complimented the architecture and said there was a lot of
visual interest in items such as the roofline and types of balconies including recessed
balconies. Mr. Wood added that the proposed building does not have a long boring
façade. Mr. Wood said that most developers want to take advantage of every square
foot of the interior and in this case to do more quality design they’ve included the
recessed balconies which add shade and an architectural element.
Mr. Wood stated 71st Street is the entry into the parking structure and the building
lobby. Mr. Wood shared the renderings and noted there are a tremendous number of
amenities and the parking structure would be screened and the roof becomes the
location for a pool, club house, and amenity area. Mr. Wood showed how the building
steps down as you move from east to west.
Mr. Wood indicated the site is being down zoned from C-2 which he said allows many
more uses that are typically high traffic generators. Mr. Wood shared trip generation
numbers and noted that there is no vehicular connection with this project and the
subdivision to the west. Mr. Wood added they had worked closely with the neighbors.
Questions from Committee
Ms. Diane Peterson asked about the traffic study and was wondering about traffic
traveling to and from Scottsdale and traffic going down 71st Street through other
neighborhoods which do not have an entrance on Bell Road. Mr. Wood said the traffic
study shows the use was a low traffic generator. Ms. Peterson was more concerned
with the cumulative effect of the traffic and believes this is changing the nature of some
of the neighborhoods. Mr. Wood reinforced they were a smaller traffic generator than C-
2 zoning.
Mr. Robert Goodhue said he goes to the CVS next to the subject site periodically and
of all times he has driven through the area and noted there were not many cars
traveling and thought the area at times is deserted. Mr. Goodhue asked if the neighbors
to the west next to the mini storage supported the project. Mr. Wood stated the single-
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 570
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2 – Information Only
family neighbors to the west had not shared their support yet, however, they had
worked with the neighbors very closely. Mr. Wood indicated they had worked on sight
line studies and were discussing landscaping. Mr. Wood said usually privacy is more of
an issue than the height of the building and they are trying to work with the neighbors on
this matter. Mr. Goodhue said he hoped they could satisfy concerned neighbors.
Ms. Patrice Marcolla said it is nice to see redevelopment if the spaces are not being
used and was wondering why the commercial spaces of the subject site are not being
used. Mr. Wood said the seller is not renewing leases.
Chair Anita Mortensen asked if parking is all on one level. Mr. Wood responded that
parking is on each level.
Ms. Peterson said she is concerned with the major exit from the building on an
easement which is shared by many property owners.
Chair Mortensen expressed some concerns that were raised after the meeting
associated with the multi-story building proposed at the corner of Scottsdale Road and
Bell Road. Chair Mortensen added that the storage building to the west was not very
wide and not just one or two individuals would be concerned about height. Chair
Mortensen thought four-stories facing the single-family residences would be an issue
even if landscaping and buffers were provided in the backyards. Mr. Wood said the
single-family properties to the west were separated by about one-half a football field
away from the proposed four-story portion of the building.
Ms. Jennifer Hall asked if there was a drop-off or pick-up area for someone wanting to
use rideshare. Mr. Wood showed where on the plans there would be space for a drop
off near 71st Street. Ms. Hall asked if there was only one way into the project. Mr. Wood
said the other driveway on the west side of the site does not punch through.
Vice Chair Sommers asked about the landscaping on the west side. Kevin Farrell with
Fifield Companies noted the plants will be twenty to thirty feet tall when transported.
Chair Mortensen asked what type of trees would be planted. Mr. Wood said they had
not figured out the exact species of the plant material palette.
Ms. Hall asked about the setbacks and had concerns as a lot of buildings are going up
in the Kierland area with the buildings being built so close to the road. Mr. Wood said
this was a legitimate concern, however, he felt they addressed this through detached
sidewalks, landscape between sidewalk and the buildings and there is an open area
which breaks up the building along the street fronts.
Ms. Regina Schmidt said screening trees is the only way to get privacy. Mr. Wood
said they were working with the neighbors to help address privacy issues.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 571
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-41-25-2 – Information Only
Mr. Daniel Mazza felt this was a well-done project and was impressed with the
proposed wrap shielding the parking areas.
Ms. Peterson asked about the reaction of Jackson’s Car Wash. Mr. Wood said the car
wash loves the proposal as 71st Street is an easement that everyone has a right to use.
Ms. Marcolla asked about guest parking and Maggie Dellow with the applicant said it
is at 0.5 space per required vehicle parking. Mr. Wood added that it is a gated parking
structure.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 572
ATTACHMENTD
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-41-25-2 (Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD) (Companion Case
GPA-PV-1-25-2)
Location: Approximately 660 feet west of the southwest corner of Scottsdale
Road and Bell Road
From: C-2
To: PUD
Acreage: 4.32
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Fifield Companies
Owner: GDC-Scottsdale Crossings, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 10/6/2025 Information only.
Paradise Valley 11/3/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with deletions. Vote: 7-5.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-41-25-2, per the Paradise
Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation in companion case GPA-PV-1-25-2 and is compatible with the transitioning
land use pattern in the surrounding area.
2. The proposed development will add to the mix of housing options within the Desert
Ridge/Kierland Major Employment Center.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that support efforts from
various plans and initiatives, including the Shade Phoenix Plan, the Complete Streets
Guiding Principles, the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, the Housing Phoenix Plan,
Zero Waste PHX, the Transportation Electrification Action Plan, and the Phoenix Climate
Action Plan.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Residences at Scottsdale Crossing PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning
and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date
stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 16, D.6 Shade: Delete the last sentence of the second paragraph “Within the
outdoor amenity area above the parking garage only, palm trees may count towards
required shade” and replace it with “Shade may be achieved by structures or by
landscaping, or a combination thereof.”
c. Pages 19, F1: Permitted Signs: Delete all and replace with “All signage shall comply
with City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 705. A Comprehensive Sign Plan
may be processed in accordance with Section 705.E.2. of the Zoning Ordinance.”
d. Page 20, G1: City Enforced Standards: Revise the last sentence to update the
c. number of years “….to participate in the Water Efficiency Checkup program for a
minimum of 15 years, or as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.”
e. Exhibit 14: Remove the exhibit on the last page titled “Conceptual Signage Plan”.
2. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process, prior
to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
3. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of Scottsdale 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.
4. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix for the
site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final site plan
approval.
5. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be undergrounded, adjacent
to the development. The developer shall coordinate with the affected utility companies for
their review and permitting.
6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
7. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and
delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT E
COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE
POST-VPC MEETING
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-CE-1-
21-8 - Southwest Corner of 35th Street and Culver Street (Resolution 22356) -
District 8
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment to consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if approved.
Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 15.25 acres from
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
to Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial. This is a companion case to Z-27-21-8 and must
be heard prior to Z-27-21-8.
Summary
Application: GPA-CE-1-21-8
Current Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (0.15 acres) and
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (15.10 acres)
Proposed Designation: Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Acreage: 15.25
Proposed Use: Mix of Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation Inc.
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 7, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 4, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 18-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 1100 N. 35th Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-CE-1-21-8,
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 2025 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 22191, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-CE-1-21-8. The 15.25 acres
of property located at the southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street is
designated as Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2025 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
-2- Resolution
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
-3- Resolution
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
October 28, 2025
Application: GPA-CE-1-21-8
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #4
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Acreage: 15.25 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (15.10
acres)
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (0.15
acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial (15.25 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Camelback East Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2025
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a
public school, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
2) The companion rezoning case, Z-27-21-8, proposes design and development
standards that limit the intensity of development and buffer the proposed uses
from the adjacent residences.
3) The subject site is appropriate for the proposed mix of uses, adding commercial
uses to serve the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Analysis
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject site is a 15.25-acre site located at the southwest corner of 35th Street and
Culver Street with frontage along the Loop 202 freeway to the south. The current
General Plan Land Use Map designations on the site are 15.10 acres of Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre and 0.15 acres of Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant proposes to change the designation of the entirety of the site to a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial.
Companion Case Z-27-21-8 (The Gateway School PUD) is a request to rezone the
subject site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District), PAD-13 (Approved R-3A)
(Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily Residence District), R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District), and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family Residence District,
Approved Multifamily Residence District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow
secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a public school.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North and east of the subject site is single-family and multifamily residential
development designated Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre on the General Plan
Land Use Map. West of the subject site is single-family residential development
designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. South of the subject site is
freeway right-of-way for the Loop 202 freeway shown as Transportation.
Existing General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department
Staff Analysis
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Page 3
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES
• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.
The proposal for a mix of commercial and public/quasi-public uses is appropriate
for this location, and the proposed PUD proposes development standards to
prevent negative impacts on the adjacent residential properties.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities should
consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and
recreational options for residents.
The proposal will contribute to the mix of uses in the area by providing new
accessory commercial uses.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY
• TREES AND SHADE: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into
the design of new development and redevelopment projects throughout
Phoenix.
The proposal, as regulated by the PUD Narrative of companion rezoning case Z-
27-21-8, includes development standards that require enhanced landscaping and
shade, including minimum shade requirements for pedestrian walkways and
open space areas. This will help to provide shade for pedestrians and bicyclists
in and around the community and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by
covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the vicinity.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-CE-1-21-8. The proposed land use map
designation allows for commercial and public/quasi-public uses at an appropriate
location. The companion rezoning case, Z-27-21-8, as stipulated, will enhance
connectivity in the surrounding area and add standards to buffer the proposed uses
from the nearby residences.
Staff Analysis
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Page 4
Writer
Anthony Grande
October 28, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-CE-1-21-8 ACRES: 15.25 +/-
VILLAGE: Camelback East COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Jeff Boles
EXISTING:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 15.10 +/- Acres)
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 0.15 +/- Acres)
MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Residential 15+ du/ac
Commercial
Commerce/Business Park
36TH ST
Industrial
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Transportation
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
( 15.25 +/- Acres) MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
36TH ST
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
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-CE-1-21-8_BW ACRES: 15.25 +/-
VILLAGE: Camelback East COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Jeff Boles
EXISTING:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 15.10 +/- Acres)
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 0.15 +/- Acres)
MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre
Residential 15+ du/acre
Commercial
Commerce/Business Park
36TH ST
Industrial
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
Transportation
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
( 15.25 +/- Acres) MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
36TH ST
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2025
Request From Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Proposal Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 18-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Chair Fischbach asked if there were any changes to this proposal since the last
presentation. Mr. Grande stated there were not. Chair Fischbach requested that staff
skip their presentation on this item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Schmieder asked about the phrase “safe human interaction” in
the PUD narrative. Mr. Maerowitz replied that it was related to fostering supportive
relationships. Ms. Schmieder noted that the open spaces could attract crime. Mr.
Maerowitz noted the cleanup efforts from the applicant.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8
November 4, 2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Paceley made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-CE-1-21-8, per the
staff recommendation. Committee Member Augusta seconded the motion.
VOTE:
18-0; motion to recommend approval of GPA-CE-1-21-8, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut,
Grace, Jurayeva, Langmade, McClelland, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd,
Whitesell, Williams, Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 589
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 7, 2025
Request From Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Proposal Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Guevar asked about the 20-acre requirement for PUDs to allow
billboards. Mr. Maerowitz discussed the history of the City applying zoning limitations
on billboards.
Committee Member Todd asked about the proximity of parking to Area 2B and
whether people would need to cut through the school to access it. Mr. Maerowitz
reviewed the location of parking on site. Jay Mann, Superintendent of the Creighton
School District, noted that the school already hosts activities and has access pathways,
adding that outside of school hours more areas can be opened up for circulation.
Committee Member Todd asked about the maximum square footage of uses in Area
2. Mr. Maerowitz described the square footage limitations for the PUD overall
compared with square footage limitations for each area.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8 - Info Only
October 7, 2025
Committee Member Augusta commended the school district for the work they do.
Committee Member Noel asked if there were any concerns from the neighbors. Mr.
Maerowitz described the outreach conducted, noting that they have received broad
support.
Committee Member Guevar asked how the programming of the billboard will be
managed. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the school will release an RFP for an operator of
the billboard. Mr. Mann added that the RFP will specify limitations on the content of the
billboard.
Committee Member Sharaby noted that this process has moved slowly from the
original text amendment to this PUD moving forward.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 591
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 6.
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-CE-1-21-8 (Companion Case Z-27-21-8)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre
To: Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Acreage: 15.25
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to a mix of Public/Quasi-Public and
Commercial
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 10/7/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 11/4/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 18-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve GPA-CE-1-21-8, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: James
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a public
school, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
2. The companion rezoning case, Z-27-21-8, proposes design and development standards
that limit the intensity of development and buffer the proposed uses from the adjacent
residences.
3. The subject site is appropriate for the proposed mix of uses, adding commercial uses to
serve the surrounding neighborhood.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Report
21-8 - Southwest Corner of 35th Street and Culver Street (Resolution 22356) -
District 8
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment to consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if approved.
Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 15.25 acres from
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
to Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial. This is a companion case to Z-27-21-8 and must
be heard prior to Z-27-21-8.
Summary
Application: GPA-CE-1-21-8
Current Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (0.15 acres) and
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (15.10 acres)
Proposed Designation: Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Acreage: 15.25
Proposed Use: Mix of Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation Inc.
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 7, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 4, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 18-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 1100 N. 35th Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-CE-1-21-8,
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 2025 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 22191, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-CE-1-21-8. The 15.25 acres
of property located at the southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street is
designated as Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2025 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January
2026.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
-2- Resolution
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
-3- Resolution
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
October 28, 2025
Application: GPA-CE-1-21-8
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #4
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Acreage: 15.25 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (15.10
acres)
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (0.15
acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial (15.25 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Camelback East Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2025
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a
public school, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
2) The companion rezoning case, Z-27-21-8, proposes design and development
standards that limit the intensity of development and buffer the proposed uses
from the adjacent residences.
3) The subject site is appropriate for the proposed mix of uses, adding commercial
uses to serve the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Analysis
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject site is a 15.25-acre site located at the southwest corner of 35th Street and
Culver Street with frontage along the Loop 202 freeway to the south. The current
General Plan Land Use Map designations on the site are 15.10 acres of Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre and 0.15 acres of Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant proposes to change the designation of the entirety of the site to a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial.
Companion Case Z-27-21-8 (The Gateway School PUD) is a request to rezone the
subject site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District), PAD-13 (Approved R-3A)
(Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily Residence District), R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District), and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family Residence District,
Approved Multifamily Residence District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow
secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a public school.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North and east of the subject site is single-family and multifamily residential
development designated Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre on the General Plan
Land Use Map. West of the subject site is single-family residential development
designated Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. South of the subject site is
freeway right-of-way for the Loop 202 freeway shown as Transportation.
Existing General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department
Staff Analysis
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Page 3
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES
• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.
The proposal for a mix of commercial and public/quasi-public uses is appropriate
for this location, and the proposed PUD proposes development standards to
prevent negative impacts on the adjacent residential properties.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities should
consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and
recreational options for residents.
The proposal will contribute to the mix of uses in the area by providing new
accessory commercial uses.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY
• TREES AND SHADE: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into
the design of new development and redevelopment projects throughout
Phoenix.
The proposal, as regulated by the PUD Narrative of companion rezoning case Z-
27-21-8, includes development standards that require enhanced landscaping and
shade, including minimum shade requirements for pedestrian walkways and
open space areas. This will help to provide shade for pedestrians and bicyclists
in and around the community and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by
covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the vicinity.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-CE-1-21-8. The proposed land use map
designation allows for commercial and public/quasi-public uses at an appropriate
location. The companion rezoning case, Z-27-21-8, as stipulated, will enhance
connectivity in the surrounding area and add standards to buffer the proposed uses
from the nearby residences.
Staff Analysis
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Page 4
Writer
Anthony Grande
October 28, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-CE-1-21-8 ACRES: 15.25 +/-
VILLAGE: Camelback East COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Jeff Boles
EXISTING:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 15.10 +/- Acres)
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 0.15 +/- Acres)
MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Residential 15+ du/ac
Commercial
Commerce/Business Park
36TH ST
Industrial
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Transportation
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
( 15.25 +/- Acres) MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
36TH ST
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
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-CE-1-21-8_BW ACRES: 15.25 +/-
VILLAGE: Camelback East COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Jeff Boles
EXISTING:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 15.10 +/- Acres)
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 0.15 +/- Acres)
MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre
Residential 15+ du/acre
Commercial
Commerce/Business Park
36TH ST
Industrial
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
Transportation
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
( 15.25 +/- Acres) MCDOWELL RD
Proposed Change Area
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
36TH ST
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2025
Request From Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Proposal Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 18-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Chair Fischbach asked if there were any changes to this proposal since the last
presentation. Mr. Grande stated there were not. Chair Fischbach requested that staff
skip their presentation on this item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Schmieder asked about the phrase “safe human interaction” in
the PUD narrative. Mr. Maerowitz replied that it was related to fostering supportive
relationships. Ms. Schmieder noted that the open spaces could attract crime. Mr.
Maerowitz noted the cleanup efforts from the applicant.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8
November 4, 2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Paceley made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-CE-1-21-8, per the
staff recommendation. Committee Member Augusta seconded the motion.
VOTE:
18-0; motion to recommend approval of GPA-CE-1-21-8, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut,
Grace, Jurayeva, Langmade, McClelland, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd,
Whitesell, Williams, Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 589
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 7, 2025
Request From Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Proposal Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a mix of
Public/Quasi-Public and Commercial
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Guevar asked about the 20-acre requirement for PUDs to allow
billboards. Mr. Maerowitz discussed the history of the City applying zoning limitations
on billboards.
Committee Member Todd asked about the proximity of parking to Area 2B and
whether people would need to cut through the school to access it. Mr. Maerowitz
reviewed the location of parking on site. Jay Mann, Superintendent of the Creighton
School District, noted that the school already hosts activities and has access pathways,
adding that outside of school hours more areas can be opened up for circulation.
Committee Member Todd asked about the maximum square footage of uses in Area
2. Mr. Maerowitz described the square footage limitations for the PUD overall
compared with square footage limitations for each area.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CE-1-21-8 - Info Only
October 7, 2025
Committee Member Augusta commended the school district for the work they do.
Committee Member Noel asked if there were any concerns from the neighbors. Mr.
Maerowitz described the outreach conducted, noting that they have received broad
support.
Committee Member Guevar asked how the programming of the billboard will be
managed. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the school will release an RFP for an operator of
the billboard. Mr. Mann added that the RFP will specify limitations on the content of the
billboard.
Committee Member Sharaby noted that this process has moved slowly from the
original text amendment to this PUD moving forward.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 591
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 6.
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-CE-1-21-8 (Companion Case Z-27-21-8)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre
To: Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
Acreage: 15.25
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to a mix of Public/Quasi-Public and
Commercial
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 10/7/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 11/4/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 18-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve GPA-CE-1-21-8, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: James
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a public
school, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
2. The companion rezoning case, Z-27-21-8, proposes design and development standards
that limit the intensity of development and buffer the proposed uses from the adjacent
residences.
3. The subject site is appropriate for the proposed mix of uses, adding commercial uses to
serve the surrounding neighborhood.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-27-21-8 (The
Gateway School PUD) - Southwest Corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
(Ordinance G-7474) - District 8
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-27-21-
8 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District), PAD-13 (Approved
R-3A) (Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily Residence District), R-3
(Multifamily Residence District), and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family Residence
District, Approved Multifamily Residence District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
to allow secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a public school. This is a
companion case to GPA-CE-1-21-8 and must be heard following GPA-CE-1-21-8.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 (7.79 acres), PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) (4.61 acres), R-3 (2.42
acres), and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (0.43-acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 15.25
Proposal: Secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a public school
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation Inc.
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 7, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 4, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 18-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 1100 N. 35th Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-27-21-8) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT), PAD-13 (APPROVED R-3A) (PLANNED
AREA DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT), R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), AND
R1-6 (APPROVED R-3A) (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, APPROVED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 15.25-acre site located at the southwest
corner of 35th Street and Culver Street in a portion of Section 1, Township 1 North,
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from
7.79 acres of “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District), 4.61 acres of “PAD-13
(Approved R-3A)” (Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily Residence
District), 2.42 acres of “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District), and 0.43-acres of “R1-6
(Approved R-3A)” (Single-Family Residence District, Approved Multifamily Residence
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 Gateway 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 June 4, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Add “The Gateway School PUD” title and add the submittal
date information as follows: “First Submittal: May 6, 2021. Second
Submittal: October 5, 2022. Third Submittal: September 14, 2023. Hearing
Draft: June 4, 2025. City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].”
2. The site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called a Zone A
on panel 2210L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) revised October 16,
2013. The following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits
on the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the proposed
facilities have been considered, following the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but
is not limited to, provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain
Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for
review and approval of Floodplain requirements.
c. FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR is required prior to issuance of a
Grading and Drainage permit.
3. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis report to the City for this
development, no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
approved by the City.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
5. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-27-21-8
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 1, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
CREIGHTON NEW SCHOOL, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 488, PAGE 22, MARICOPA
COUNTY RECORDS, ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND
SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CULVER STREET, AND 35TH STREET, AS
SHOWN ON SAID PLAT OF CREIGHTON NEW SCHOOL, SOUTH 00°38’59” EAST,
1049.34 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 35TH STREET, TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 55.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 58°07’28”, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 55.80 FEET, TO A TANGENT REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 57°13’03”, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 14.98 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°15’26” WEST, 47.51 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT
OF WAY OF ARIZONA STATE ROUTE 202;
THENCE NORTH 89°44’34” WEST, 33.79 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 00°15’26” WEST, 25.00 FEET TO
A LINE BEING 25.00’ SOUTHWEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH RIGHT
OF WAY;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES:
THENCE NORTH 89°44’34” WEST, 101.87 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 71°05’41” WEST, 40.17 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 74°18’49” WEST, 275.08 FEET TO A LINE BEING 25.00 FEET
SOUTHWEST AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE APPROPRIATORS
CANAL, AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 49°38’10” WEST, 134.42 FEET
ALONG SAID LINE BEING PARALLEL WITH SAID CANAL TO THE SOUTHERLY
EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1;
THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE, AND ALONG SAID WEST LINE, AND
EXTENSION THEREOF NORTH 00°37’54” WEST, 495.28 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND WEST LINE EXTENDED
SOUTH 89°22’06” WEST, 133.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 34TH
STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 00°37’54” WEST, 50.00 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE AND WEST
LINE EXTENDED OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°22’06” EAST, 125.00 FEET TO THE
WEST LINE OF THAT 16.00 FOOT WIDE ALLEY AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION, NORTH
00°37’54” WEST 488.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CULVER
STREET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE & EXTENSION, AND ALONG SAID
CENTERLINE,
SOUTH 89°54’41” EAST, 581.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS A COMPUTED AREA OF 666,962 SQ.
FT., OR 15.311 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY
EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
The Gateway School PUD
October 28, 2025
Camelback East Village Planning November 4, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 4, 2025
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(7.79 acres)
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) (Planned Area
Development, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (4.61 acres)
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (2.42
acres)
R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family
Residence District, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (0.43 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (15.25
acres)
Proposal: PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver
Street
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #4
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
General Plan Conformity
Current
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
(15.10 acres)
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre (0.15 acres)
Proposed (GPA-CE-1-21-8)
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
35th Street Local Street 30-foot west half street
Street Map Classification Culver Street Local Street 35-foot south half street
34th Street Local Street 25-foot east half street
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for accessory commercial uses at the proposed scale and with the
proposed development standards is appropriate for this location.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities should
consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and
recreational options for residents.
The proposal will contribute to the mix of uses in the area by providing accessory
commercial uses in conjunction with the public school.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed PUD sets forth development standards that require enhanced
landscaping and shade, including minimum shade requirements for pedestrian
walkways and open space areas. This will help to provide shade for pedestrians and
bicyclists in and around the community and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by
covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 11.
Shade Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 12.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
R1-6, PAD-13
(Approved R-3A), R-
On Site Public school
3, and R1-6
(Approved R-3A)
North (across Culver
Single-family residential R1-6 and R-4
Street)
Single-family residential and
East (across 35th Street) R1-6 and R-3
multifamily residential
South Loop-202 Freeway R1-6 and R-4
West Single-family residential R1-6
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 15.25-acre site located at the southwest corner of 35th
Street and Culver Street from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (7.79 acres),
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) (Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (4.61 acres), R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (2.42 acres),
and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family Residence District, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (0.43 acres) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the
Gateway School PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a
public school.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The subject site is designated as
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre on the General Plan Land Use
Map. To the north and east is
designated Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre. To the west is
designated as Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre. To the south is
the Loop 202 freeway.
The applicant is proposing a minor
General Plan Amendment (GPA-CE-1-
21-8) to change the designation of the
subject site to Public/Quasi-Public / General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
Commercial. The uses allowed in the Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
proposed PUD are consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. To the north, across Culver Street, is
single-family residential zoned R1-6
and R-4 (Multifamily Residence
District). To the east, across 35th
Street, is single-family and multifamily
residential zoned R1-6 and R-3. To the
south is the Loop 202 Freeway zoned
R1-6 and R-4. To the west is single-
family residential zoned R1-6.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that
produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5. The PUD proposes to maintain the public school as the primary use on the site
while introducing secondary accessory commercial uses on portions of the site.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
6. Land Use
The proposed development narrative
allows a public school as the only
primary use on the entire site.
Secondary accessory uses are
established based on subareas within
the PUD as follows:
• Area 1 permits a community
garden, baked goods retail sales,
and a farmer’s market subject to
performance standards;
• Area 2A permits professional
offices, a restaurant, and a food
pantry;
• Area 2B permits professional
offices;
• Area 3 does not permit any
accessory uses.
Land Use Plan; Source: Applicant’s PUD
Narrative
7. Development Standards
In accordance with State law, the property’s public school and its related uses are
exempt from Phoenix Zoning Ordinance standards. The table below summarizes
the key development standards set forth in the narrative for secondary accessory
uses, which are most analogous to the C-2 zoning district. The proposed PUD only
deviates from the C-2 standards in the following ways: a lower height limit within
Area 2B and a smaller building setback along the west property line within Areas 1
and 2B.
Standard PUD Proposed
Maximum Building 2 stories, 30 feet; 25 feet within Area 2B.
Height
Maximum Lot 50 percent
Coverage
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
Minimum Perimeter North (Culver Street): 25 feet average; 20 feet
Building Setbacks minimum
East (35th Street): 25 feet average; 20 feet minimum
South (Loop 202): 25 feet average; 20 feet minimum
West (Area 1): 20 feet
West (Area 2B): 10 feet
Vehicular Parking 128 spaces, unless the parking requirement for
accessory uses exceeds 54 spaces
Shade Community gathering areas and internal walkways
within Areas 1 and 2: 75 percent minimum
8. Landscape Standards
The PUD sets forth standards for perimeter landscape setbacks and planting
standards. The table below summarizes the key landscape standards. The
landscape setbacks and planting standards proposed in the PUD match the
requirements of the C-2 zoning district, except that standards along the west
property line within Area 1 are enhanced.
Standard PUD Proposed
Minimum Landscape North (Culver Street): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
Setbacks East (35th Street): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
South (Loop 202): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
West (34th Street): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
West (not adjacent to street): 10 feet; 20 feet within
Area 1
Planting Standards Adjacent to streets and west perimeter within Area 1:
(Perimeter Landscape 50% minimum 2-inch caliper, 25% minimum 3-inch
Setbacks) caliper, 25% 4-inch caliper trees, planted 20 feet on
center; five 5-gallon shrubs per tree; 50% live
groundcover
West perimeter within Area 2B and Area 3: 40%
minimum 1-inch caliper, 60% minimum 2-inch caliper
trees, planted 20 feet on center; five 5-gallon shrubs per
tree; 50% live groundcover
9. Design Guidelines
The PUD proposes design guidelines that enhance the appearance and
functionality of the buildings, open space, and amenities on-site. Buildings will
incorporate multiple building materials and will use techniques to reduce building
massing, such as wall offsets, inclusion of windows, and roofline variation.
The landscape design guidelines promote compatibility with the established
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
distinctive character, and open space areas will be designed to be shaded and
functional.
10. Signs
The PUD proposes standards that permit one off-premise advertising structure,
which must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance requirements of Section 705.2,
including that the off-premise advertising structure shall not be located within 250
feet of a residential use.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
11. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted 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 promote safety and connectivity for
all users, the PUD proposes standards for shaded pedestrian walkways on site.
12. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan. The
Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the City to
improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the urban heat
island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent health
complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan
provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and developing
shade stipulations in rezoning cases. The PUD narrative includes standards for
enhanced shade for on-site walkways and outdoor gathering areas.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Floodplain Management division of the Office of the City Engineer provided the
comment that the subject site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area and
that any proposed improvements or modifications are subject to federal regulations
and the City of Phoenix Floodplain Ordinance. The Floodplain Management division
must approve a Grading and Drainage Plan demonstrating compliance with the
regulations prior to any permit issuance. This comment is addressed in Stipulation
No. 2.
15. The Street Transportation Department commented that the developer shall submit a
Traffic Impact Analysis for any development, and the developer shall construct all
streets within and adjacent to the development with all required improvements and
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
comply with ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 and 4.
OTHER
16. The Aviation Department requested that the property owner record documents that
disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to
future owners or tenants of the property. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
17. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities must
cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology
Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the
materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6 through 8.
18. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 9.
19. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Designation and the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a
public school at an appropriate location, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade, and prevent new
development from negatively impacting the surrounding area.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for The Gateway 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 June 4, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Add “The Gateway School PUD” title and add the submittal date
information as follows: “First Submittal: May 6, 2021. Second Submittal:
October 5, 2022. Third Submittal: September 14, 2023. Hearing Draft: June 4,
2025. City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].”
2. The site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called a Zone A on
panel 2210L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) revised October 16, 2013.
The following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits on
the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the proposed
facilities have been considered, following the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is
not limited to, provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of
the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements.
c. FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR is required prior to issuance of a
Grading and Drainage permit.
3. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis report to the City for this
development, no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
approved by the City.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Anthony Grande
October 28, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped October 5, 2022
The Gateway School PUD development narrative date stamped June 4, 2025
R-3A
Z-196-83
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
I
Miles
Z-27-21
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Creighton Community Foundation
FROM: PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) ( 4.61 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
5/26/2021 R1-6 (Approved R-3A) ( 0.43 a.c.)
Z-27-21 REVISION DATES:
10/06/2023 R1-6 ( 7.79 a.c.)
R-3 ( 2.42 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
15.25 Acres QS 12-35 G-10 TO: PUD ( 15.25 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R1-6 (Approved R-3A), R1-6, R-3 67 (101), 2 (9), 41, 35 N/A (121), 3 (11), 50, 42
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\2021\Z-27-21.mxd
R-3A
Z-196-83
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
I
Miles
Z-27-21
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Creighton Community Foundation
FROM: PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) ( 4.61 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
5/26/2021 R1-6 (Approved R-3A) ( 0.43 a.c.)
Z-27-21 REVISION DATES:
10/06/2023 R1-6 ( 7.79 a.c.)
R-3 ( 2.42 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
15.25 Acres QS 12-35 G-10 TO: PUD ( 15.25 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R1-6 (Approved R-3A), R1-6, R-3 67 (101), 2 (9), 41, 35 N/A (121), 3 (11), 50, 42
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\2021\Z-27-21.mxd
N. 33RD STREET
N. 34TH STREET
22.0'
PUBLIC ACCESS ESMT
12.0'
PUBLIC SEWER ESMT
50.0'
35' R/W
R/W
N. 35TH STREET
N. 36TH STREET
32ND ST
35TH ST
36TH ST
Creighton USD Land Use Plan
03.17.2021 32nd Street & 202 Freeway
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2025
Request From R1-6, PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R-3, and R1-6
(Approved R-3A)
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 18-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Chair Fischbach asked if there were any changes to this proposal since the last
presentation. Mr. Grande stated there were not. Chair Fischbach requested that staff
skip their presentation on this item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Schmieder asked about the phrase “safe human interaction” in
the PUD narrative. Mr. Maerowitz replied that it was related to fostering supportive
relationships. Ms. Schmieder noted that the open spaces could attract crime. Mr.
Maerowitz noted the cleanup efforts from the applicant.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8
November 4, 2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Paceley made a motion to recommend approval of Z-27-21-8, per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Augusta seconded the motion.
VOTE:
18-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-27-21-8, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut,
Grace, Jurayeva, Langmade, McClelland, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd,
Whitesell, Williams, Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 617
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 7, 2025
Request From R1-6, PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R-3, and R1-6
(Approved R-3A)
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Guevar asked about the 20-acre requirement for PUDs to allow
billboards. Mr. Maerowitz discussed the history of the City applying zoning limitations
on billboards.
Committee Member Todd asked about the proximity of parking to Area 2B and
whether people would need to cut through the school to access it. Mr. Maerowitz
reviewed the location of parking on site. Jay Mann, Superintendent of the Creighton
School District, noted that the school already hosts activities and has access pathways,
adding that outside of school hours more areas can be opened up for circulation.
Committee Member Todd asked about the maximum square footage of uses in Area
2. Mr. Maerowitz described the square footage limitations for the PUD overall
compared with square footage limitations for each area.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8 - Info Only
October 7, 2025
Committee Member Augusta commended the school district for the work they do.
Committee Member Noel asked if there were any concerns from the neighbors. Mr.
Maerowitz described the outreach conducted, noting that they have received broad
support.
Committee Member Guevar asked how the programming of the billboard will be
managed. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the school will release an RFP for an operator of
the billboard. Mr. Mann added that the RFP will specify limitations on the content of the
billboard.
Committee Member Sharaby noted that this process has moved slowly from the
original text amendment to this PUD moving forward.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 619
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-27-21-8 (The Gateway School PUD) (Companion Case GPA-CE-1-
21-8)
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
From: PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R-3, R1-6 (Approved R-3A), and R1-6
To: PUD
Acreage: 15.25
Proposal: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Applicant: Planned Unit Development to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Owner: Creighton Community Foundation
Representative: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 10/7/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 11/4/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 18-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-27-21-8, per the Camelback
East Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: James
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map Designation
and the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a public
school at an appropriate location, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade, and prevent new
development from negatively impacting the surrounding area.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for The Gateway 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
June 4, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Add “The Gateway School PUD” title and add the submittal date
information as follows: “First Submittal: May 6, 2021. Second Submittal: October 5,
2022. Third Submittal: September 14, 2023. Hearing Draft: June 4, 2025. City
Council adopted: [Add adoption date].”
2. The site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called a Zone A on panel
2210L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) revised October 16, 2013. The following
requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits on the
Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities have
been considered, following the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is not limited to, provisions
in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval of
Floodplain requirements.
c. FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR is required prior to issuance of a Grading and
Drainage permit.
3. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis report to the City for this
development, no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is approved
by the City.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
5. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and
delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Report
Gateway School PUD) - Southwest Corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
(Ordinance G-7474) - District 8
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-27-21-
8 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District), PAD-13 (Approved
R-3A) (Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily Residence District), R-3
(Multifamily Residence District), and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family Residence
District, Approved Multifamily Residence District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
to allow secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a public school. This is a
companion case to GPA-CE-1-21-8 and must be heard following GPA-CE-1-21-8.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 (7.79 acres), PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) (4.61 acres), R-3 (2.42
acres), and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (0.43-acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 15.25
Proposal: Secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a public school
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation Inc.
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 7, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 4, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 18-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 1100 N. 35th Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-27-21-8) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT), PAD-13 (APPROVED R-3A) (PLANNED
AREA DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT), R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), AND
R1-6 (APPROVED R-3A) (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, APPROVED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 15.25-acre site located at the southwest
corner of 35th Street and Culver Street in a portion of Section 1, Township 1 North,
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from
7.79 acres of “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District), 4.61 acres of “PAD-13
(Approved R-3A)” (Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily Residence
District), 2.42 acres of “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District), and 0.43-acres of “R1-6
(Approved R-3A)” (Single-Family Residence District, Approved Multifamily Residence
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 Gateway 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 June 4, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Add “The Gateway School PUD” title and add the submittal
date information as follows: “First Submittal: May 6, 2021. Second
Submittal: October 5, 2022. Third Submittal: September 14, 2023. Hearing
Draft: June 4, 2025. City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].”
2. The site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called a Zone A
on panel 2210L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) revised October 16,
2013. The following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits
on the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the proposed
facilities have been considered, following the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but
is not limited to, provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain
Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for
review and approval of Floodplain requirements.
c. FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR is required prior to issuance of a
Grading and Drainage permit.
3. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis report to the City for this
development, no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
approved by the City.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
5. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-27-21-8
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 1, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
CREIGHTON NEW SCHOOL, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 488, PAGE 22, MARICOPA
COUNTY RECORDS, ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND
SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CULVER STREET, AND 35TH STREET, AS
SHOWN ON SAID PLAT OF CREIGHTON NEW SCHOOL, SOUTH 00°38’59” EAST,
1049.34 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 35TH STREET, TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 55.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 58°07’28”, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 55.80 FEET, TO A TANGENT REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 57°13’03”, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 14.98 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°15’26” WEST, 47.51 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT
OF WAY OF ARIZONA STATE ROUTE 202;
THENCE NORTH 89°44’34” WEST, 33.79 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 00°15’26” WEST, 25.00 FEET TO
A LINE BEING 25.00’ SOUTHWEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH RIGHT
OF WAY;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES:
THENCE NORTH 89°44’34” WEST, 101.87 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 71°05’41” WEST, 40.17 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 74°18’49” WEST, 275.08 FEET TO A LINE BEING 25.00 FEET
SOUTHWEST AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE APPROPRIATORS
CANAL, AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 49°38’10” WEST, 134.42 FEET
ALONG SAID LINE BEING PARALLEL WITH SAID CANAL TO THE SOUTHERLY
EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1;
THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE, AND ALONG SAID WEST LINE, AND
EXTENSION THEREOF NORTH 00°37’54” WEST, 495.28 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND WEST LINE EXTENDED
SOUTH 89°22’06” WEST, 133.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 34TH
STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 00°37’54” WEST, 50.00 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WEST LINE AND WEST
LINE EXTENDED OF SAID LOT 1, NORTH 89°22’06” EAST, 125.00 FEET TO THE
WEST LINE OF THAT 16.00 FOOT WIDE ALLEY AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION, NORTH
00°37’54” WEST 488.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CULVER
STREET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE & EXTENSION, AND ALONG SAID
CENTERLINE,
SOUTH 89°54’41” EAST, 581.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS A COMPUTED AREA OF 666,962 SQ.
FT., OR 15.311 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY
EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
The Gateway School PUD
October 28, 2025
Camelback East Village Planning November 4, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 4, 2025
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(7.79 acres)
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) (Planned Area
Development, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (4.61 acres)
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (2.42
acres)
R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family
Residence District, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (0.43 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (15.25
acres)
Proposal: PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver
Street
Owner: Creighton Elementary School District #4
Applicant: Jeff Boles, Creighton Community Foundation
Representative: Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
General Plan Conformity
Current
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
(15.10 acres)
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre (0.15 acres)
Proposed (GPA-CE-1-21-8)
Public/Quasi-Public / Commercial
35th Street Local Street 30-foot west half street
Street Map Classification Culver Street Local Street 35-foot south half street
34th Street Local Street 25-foot east half street
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for accessory commercial uses at the proposed scale and with the
proposed development standards is appropriate for this location.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities should
consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and
recreational options for residents.
The proposal will contribute to the mix of uses in the area by providing accessory
commercial uses in conjunction with the public school.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed PUD sets forth development standards that require enhanced
landscaping and shade, including minimum shade requirements for pedestrian
walkways and open space areas. This will help to provide shade for pedestrians and
bicyclists in and around the community and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by
covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 11.
Shade Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 12.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
R1-6, PAD-13
(Approved R-3A), R-
On Site Public school
3, and R1-6
(Approved R-3A)
North (across Culver
Single-family residential R1-6 and R-4
Street)
Single-family residential and
East (across 35th Street) R1-6 and R-3
multifamily residential
South Loop-202 Freeway R1-6 and R-4
West Single-family residential R1-6
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 15.25-acre site located at the southwest corner of 35th
Street and Culver Street from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (7.79 acres),
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) (Planned Area Development, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (4.61 acres), R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (2.42 acres),
and R1-6 (Approved R-3A) (Single-Family Residence District, Approved Multifamily
Residence District) (0.43 acres) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the
Gateway School PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in conjunction with a
public school.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The subject site is designated as
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre on the General Plan Land Use
Map. To the north and east is
designated Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre. To the west is
designated as Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre. To the south is
the Loop 202 freeway.
The applicant is proposing a minor
General Plan Amendment (GPA-CE-1-
21-8) to change the designation of the
subject site to Public/Quasi-Public / General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
Commercial. The uses allowed in the Planning and Development Department
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
proposed PUD are consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. To the north, across Culver Street, is
single-family residential zoned R1-6
and R-4 (Multifamily Residence
District). To the east, across 35th
Street, is single-family and multifamily
residential zoned R1-6 and R-3. To the
south is the Loop 202 Freeway zoned
R1-6 and R-4. To the west is single-
family residential zoned R1-6.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that
produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5. The PUD proposes to maintain the public school as the primary use on the site
while introducing secondary accessory commercial uses on portions of the site.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
6. Land Use
The proposed development narrative
allows a public school as the only
primary use on the entire site.
Secondary accessory uses are
established based on subareas within
the PUD as follows:
• Area 1 permits a community
garden, baked goods retail sales,
and a farmer’s market subject to
performance standards;
• Area 2A permits professional
offices, a restaurant, and a food
pantry;
• Area 2B permits professional
offices;
• Area 3 does not permit any
accessory uses.
Land Use Plan; Source: Applicant’s PUD
Narrative
7. Development Standards
In accordance with State law, the property’s public school and its related uses are
exempt from Phoenix Zoning Ordinance standards. The table below summarizes
the key development standards set forth in the narrative for secondary accessory
uses, which are most analogous to the C-2 zoning district. The proposed PUD only
deviates from the C-2 standards in the following ways: a lower height limit within
Area 2B and a smaller building setback along the west property line within Areas 1
and 2B.
Standard PUD Proposed
Maximum Building 2 stories, 30 feet; 25 feet within Area 2B.
Height
Maximum Lot 50 percent
Coverage
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
Minimum Perimeter North (Culver Street): 25 feet average; 20 feet
Building Setbacks minimum
East (35th Street): 25 feet average; 20 feet minimum
South (Loop 202): 25 feet average; 20 feet minimum
West (Area 1): 20 feet
West (Area 2B): 10 feet
Vehicular Parking 128 spaces, unless the parking requirement for
accessory uses exceeds 54 spaces
Shade Community gathering areas and internal walkways
within Areas 1 and 2: 75 percent minimum
8. Landscape Standards
The PUD sets forth standards for perimeter landscape setbacks and planting
standards. The table below summarizes the key landscape standards. The
landscape setbacks and planting standards proposed in the PUD match the
requirements of the C-2 zoning district, except that standards along the west
property line within Area 1 are enhanced.
Standard PUD Proposed
Minimum Landscape North (Culver Street): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
Setbacks East (35th Street): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
South (Loop 202): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
West (34th Street): 25 feet average, 20 feet minimum
West (not adjacent to street): 10 feet; 20 feet within
Area 1
Planting Standards Adjacent to streets and west perimeter within Area 1:
(Perimeter Landscape 50% minimum 2-inch caliper, 25% minimum 3-inch
Setbacks) caliper, 25% 4-inch caliper trees, planted 20 feet on
center; five 5-gallon shrubs per tree; 50% live
groundcover
West perimeter within Area 2B and Area 3: 40%
minimum 1-inch caliper, 60% minimum 2-inch caliper
trees, planted 20 feet on center; five 5-gallon shrubs per
tree; 50% live groundcover
9. Design Guidelines
The PUD proposes design guidelines that enhance the appearance and
functionality of the buildings, open space, and amenities on-site. Buildings will
incorporate multiple building materials and will use techniques to reduce building
massing, such as wall offsets, inclusion of windows, and roofline variation.
The landscape design guidelines promote compatibility with the established
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
distinctive character, and open space areas will be designed to be shaded and
functional.
10. Signs
The PUD proposes standards that permit one off-premise advertising structure,
which must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance requirements of Section 705.2,
including that the off-premise advertising structure shall not be located within 250
feet of a residential use.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
11. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted 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 promote safety and connectivity for
all users, the PUD proposes standards for shaded pedestrian walkways on site.
12. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan. The
Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the City to
improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the urban heat
island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent health
complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan
provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and developing
shade stipulations in rezoning cases. The PUD narrative includes standards for
enhanced shade for on-site walkways and outdoor gathering areas.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time this staff report was written, staff has not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Floodplain Management division of the Office of the City Engineer provided the
comment that the subject site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area and
that any proposed improvements or modifications are subject to federal regulations
and the City of Phoenix Floodplain Ordinance. The Floodplain Management division
must approve a Grading and Drainage Plan demonstrating compliance with the
regulations prior to any permit issuance. This comment is addressed in Stipulation
No. 2.
15. The Street Transportation Department commented that the developer shall submit a
Traffic Impact Analysis for any development, and the developer shall construct all
streets within and adjacent to the development with all required improvements and
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
comply with ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 and 4.
OTHER
16. The Aviation Department requested that the property owner record documents that
disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to
future owners or tenants of the property. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
17. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. If
further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site and
immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous archaeological
projects have been conducted within this project area, it is recommended that
archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted. Phase II
archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based upon the
results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in
consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities must
cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology
Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the
materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6 through 8.
18. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 9.
19. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Designation and the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a
public school at an appropriate location, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade, and prevent new
development from negatively impacting the surrounding area.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for The Gateway 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 June 4, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Add “The Gateway School PUD” title and add the submittal date
information as follows: “First Submittal: May 6, 2021. Second Submittal:
October 5, 2022. Third Submittal: September 14, 2023. Hearing Draft: June 4,
2025. City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].”
2. The site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called a Zone A on
panel 2210L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) revised October 16, 2013.
The following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits on
the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the proposed
facilities have been considered, following the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is
not limited to, provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of
the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements.
c. FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR is required prior to issuance of a
Grading and Drainage permit.
3. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis report to the City for this
development, no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
approved by the City.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards.
Staff Report: Z-27-21-8
October 28, 2025
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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Anthony Grande
October 28, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped October 5, 2022
The Gateway School PUD development narrative date stamped June 4, 2025
R-3A
Z-196-83
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
I
Miles
Z-27-21
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Creighton Community Foundation
FROM: PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) ( 4.61 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
5/26/2021 R1-6 (Approved R-3A) ( 0.43 a.c.)
Z-27-21 REVISION DATES:
10/06/2023 R1-6 ( 7.79 a.c.)
R-3 ( 2.42 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
15.25 Acres QS 12-35 G-10 TO: PUD ( 15.25 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R1-6 (Approved R-3A), R1-6, R-3 67 (101), 2 (9), 41, 35 N/A (121), 3 (11), 50, 42
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\2021\Z-27-21.mxd
R-3A
Z-196-83
w
v202
ROOSEVELT ST
I
Miles
Z-27-21
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Creighton Community Foundation
FROM: PAD-13 (Approved R-3A) ( 4.61 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
5/26/2021 R1-6 (Approved R-3A) ( 0.43 a.c.)
Z-27-21 REVISION DATES:
10/06/2023 R1-6 ( 7.79 a.c.)
R-3 ( 2.42 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
15.25 Acres QS 12-35 G-10 TO: PUD ( 15.25 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R1-6 (Approved R-3A), R1-6, R-3 67 (101), 2 (9), 41, 35 N/A (121), 3 (11), 50, 42
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\2021\Z-27-21.mxd
N. 33RD STREET
N. 34TH STREET
22.0'
PUBLIC ACCESS ESMT
12.0'
PUBLIC SEWER ESMT
50.0'
35' R/W
R/W
N. 35TH STREET
N. 36TH STREET
32ND ST
35TH ST
36TH ST
Creighton USD Land Use Plan
03.17.2021 32nd Street & 202 Freeway
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2025
Request From R1-6, PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R-3, and R1-6
(Approved R-3A)
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 18-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Chair Fischbach asked if there were any changes to this proposal since the last
presentation. Mr. Grande stated there were not. Chair Fischbach requested that staff
skip their presentation on this item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Schmieder asked about the phrase “safe human interaction” in
the PUD narrative. Mr. Maerowitz replied that it was related to fostering supportive
relationships. Ms. Schmieder noted that the open spaces could attract crime. Mr.
Maerowitz noted the cleanup efforts from the applicant.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8
November 4, 2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION:
Vice Chair Paceley made a motion to recommend approval of Z-27-21-8, per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Augusta seconded the motion.
VOTE:
18-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-27-21-8, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut,
Grace, Jurayeva, Langmade, McClelland, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd,
Whitesell, Williams, Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 617
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 7, 2025
Request From R1-6, PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R-3, and R1-6
(Approved R-3A)
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Location Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-CE-1-21-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-27-21-8) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the Creighton School District and Creighton Community
Foundation, the proposed site and zoning background, and the proposed land use plan
and sign provisions.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Guevar asked about the 20-acre requirement for PUDs to allow
billboards. Mr. Maerowitz discussed the history of the City applying zoning limitations
on billboards.
Committee Member Todd asked about the proximity of parking to Area 2B and
whether people would need to cut through the school to access it. Mr. Maerowitz
reviewed the location of parking on site. Jay Mann, Superintendent of the Creighton
School District, noted that the school already hosts activities and has access pathways,
adding that outside of school hours more areas can be opened up for circulation.
Committee Member Todd asked about the maximum square footage of uses in Area
2. Mr. Maerowitz described the square footage limitations for the PUD overall
compared with square footage limitations for each area.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-27-21-8 - Info Only
October 7, 2025
Committee Member Augusta commended the school district for the work they do.
Committee Member Noel asked if there were any concerns from the neighbors. Mr.
Maerowitz described the outreach conducted, noting that they have received broad
support.
Committee Member Guevar asked how the programming of the billboard will be
managed. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the school will release an RFP for an operator of
the billboard. Mr. Mann added that the RFP will specify limitations on the content of the
billboard.
Committee Member Sharaby noted that this process has moved slowly from the
original text amendment to this PUD moving forward.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 619
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-27-21-8 (The Gateway School PUD) (Companion Case GPA-CE-1-
21-8)
Location: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
From: PAD-13 (Approved R-3A), R-3, R1-6 (Approved R-3A), and R1-6
To: PUD
Acreage: 15.25
Proposal: Southwest corner of 35th Street and Culver Street
Applicant: Planned Unit Development to allow secondary commercial uses in
conjunction with a public school
Owner: Creighton Community Foundation
Representative: Creighton Elementary School District #14
Manjula M. Vaz, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 10/7/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 11/4/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 18-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Vice-Chairman Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-27-21-8, per the Camelback
East Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Boyd
Second: James
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map Designation
and the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new accessory commercial uses in conjunction with a public
school at an appropriate location, contributing to the land use mix in the area.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade, and prevent new
development from negatively impacting the surrounding area.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for The Gateway 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
June 4, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Add “The Gateway School PUD” title and add the submittal date
information as follows: “First Submittal: May 6, 2021. Second Submittal: October 5,
2022. Third Submittal: September 14, 2023. Hearing Draft: June 4, 2025. City
Council adopted: [Add adoption date].”
2. The site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called a Zone A on panel
2210L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) revised October 16, 2013. The following
requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits on the
Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities have
been considered, following the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but is not limited to, provisions
in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval of
Floodplain requirements.
c. FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR is required prior to issuance of a Grading and
Drainage permit.
3. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis report to the City for this
development, no preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is approved
by the City.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
5. 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 final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and
delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-91-25-6
(Arcadia Motor Club PUD) - Approximately 320 Feet West of the Southwest
Corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road (Ordinance G-7473) - District 6
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-91-25-
6 and rezone the site from R-5 (Multifamily Residence District - Restricted
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow a self-service storage
facility and R-5 uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-5
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 1.45
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and R-5 uses
Owner: 5301 East Thomas Rd LLC
Applicant: GO Industrial, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
item on September 9, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 4, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 17-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 5-4.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member. A
public hearing is required for this item.
Location
Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas
Road Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 5303 E. Thomas Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-91-25-6) FROM R-5 (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT – RESTRICTED 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 1.45-acre site located approximately 320 feet
west of the southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road in a portion of Section
32, Township 2 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from “R-5” (Multifamily Residence District – Restricted 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,
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 Arcadia Motor Club PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the following: City
Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 8, D. Development Standards, D2. Minimum Landscape Standards
Table, Row a, North: Delete “shall be landscape per E3.a.”
2. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
south half of Thomas Road.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
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. 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.
7. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-91-25-6
A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 56TH STREET AND THOMAS ROAD,
BEING A BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF THOMAS ROAD, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1809.04 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THOMAS ROAD AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, LEAVING SAID
RIGHT OF WAY, FOR A DISTANCE OF 368.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 56 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
157.33 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
368.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THOMAS
ROAD;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
157.20 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
Arcadia Motor Club PUD
October 23, 2025
Camelback East Village Planning November 4, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 4, 2025
Request From: R-5 (Multifamily Residence District –
Restricted Commercial) (1.45 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (1.45
acres)
Proposal: PUD to allow a self-service storage facility
and R-5 uses
Location: Approximately 320 feet west of the
southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas
Road
Owner: 5301 East Thomas Road, LLC
Applicant: GO Industrial, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
acre
Street Map
Thomas Road Arterial 40-foot south half street
Classification
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for self-service storage garages at the proposed scale is appropriate for
this location along an arterial street.
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
General Plan Conformity
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent
negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The proposal will have a height limit and landscape setbacks that are sensitive to the
adjacent residential properties.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed PUD sets forth development standards that require enhanced
landscaping and shade, including detached sidewalks and minimum shade
requirements for sidewalks and parking areas. This will help to provide shade for
pedestrians and bicyclists in and around the community and to mitigate the urban heat
island effect by covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the
vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 12.
Shade Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 13.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 14.
Conservation Measures for New Development – See Background Item No. 15.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan – See Background Item No. 16.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 17.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant land R-5
North (across Thomas
Single-family residential R1-6
Road)
East Multifamily residential PAD-15
South Multifamily residential R-3
West Multifamily residential R-5
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 1.45-acre site located approximately 320 feet west of
the southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road from R-5 (Multifamily
Residential District – Restricted Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
for the Arcadia Motor Club PUD to allow a self-service storage facility and R-5 uses.
The subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix in 1956 and has been zoned
R-5 since 1961.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The subject site and adjacent properties
to the west, east, and south are
designated as Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre on the General
Plan Land Use Map. To the north, across
Thomas Road, is designated Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
The proposal for self-service storage use
is not consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Map designation; however, a General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
General Plan Amendment is not required Planning and Development Department
since the site is less than 10 acres.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. The subject site is vacant land zoned
R-5. To the north, across Thomas
Road, is single-family residential zoned
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence
District). To the east is multifamily
residential zoned PAD-15 (Planned
Area Development). To the south is
multifamily residential zoned R-3
(Multifamily Residence District). To the
west is multifamily residential zoned R-
5.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that
produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5. The PUD proposes to develop the site with a self-service storage warehouse use,
which would have 26 garage condo units, marketed to exotic, luxury, or classic
automobile owners, in addition to a clubhouse. Individual units may include
amenities such as private restrooms, lounge seating, televisions, and game tables.
6. Land Use
The proposed development narrative allows a self-service storage warehouse and
all uses permitted within the R-5 zoning district. The narrative prohibits
manufacturing, fabrication, commercial automotive repair, and retail sales to
maintain compatibility with the surrounding area.
7. Development Standards
The table below summarizes the key development standards set forth in the
narrative for self-service storage use, which are most analogous to the C-3 district.
The proposed PUD allows greater height and lot coverage than permitted in the C-3
district and requires smaller setbacks than the C-3 district. The PUD shading
standards exceed those of the C-3 district.
Standard PUD Proposed
Maximum Building 34 feet
Height
Maximum Lot 58 percent
Coverage
Minimum Perimeter North (Thomas Road): 15 feet (west of driveway); 5
Building Setbacks feet (east of driveway)
East: 5 feet
West: 5 feet
South: 0 feet
Vehicular Parking 1 space outside of garage units for self-storage use;
per Section 702 for all other uses.
Shade Public sidewalks: 75 percent minimum; Surface parking
lots: 25 percent minimum
The standards in the table above only apply to the proposed self-service storage
use. All other uses would follow the R-5 development standards, which includes
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
multifamily residential use at a maximum of 52.2 dwelling units per acre and a
maximum height of 4 stories, 48 feet.
8. Landscape Standards
The PUD sets forth standards for perimeter landscape setbacks and landscaping
within adjacent rights-of-way. The table below summarizes the key landscape
standards. The landscape setbacks proposed in the PUD are smaller than those
required in the C-3 district. The streetscape standards exceed the requirements of
the C-3 district.
Standard PUD Proposed
Minimum Landscape North (Thomas Road): Area between back of sidewalk
Setbacks and the building (Approximately 15 feet (west of
driveway) and 5 feet (east of driveway))
East: 5 feet
West: 5 feet
South: 0 feet
Planting Standards North: minimum 2-inch caliper trees, planted 25 feet on
(Perimeter Landscape center; five shrub species and two accent species; 75%
Setbacks) live groundcover
East/west: minimum one 5-gallon Hopseed Bush,
planted 8 feet on center; 50% live groundcover.
Planting Standards Thomas Road: one 5-gallon shrub planted 5 feet on
(Right-of-way) center; five shrub species and two accent species; 75%
live groundcover
Streetscape Thomas Road: 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk, 10-foot-
wide planting area between back of curb and sidewalk;
75 percent sidewalk shade
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 1.b to remove the reference to the landscape
design section for clarity.
9. Lighting
The PUD proposes compliance with Zoning Ordinance standards related to lighting
with additional lighting requirements that lighting shall be provided every 30 feet
along the internal driveway and that lighting shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
10. Design Guidelines
The PUD proposes design guidelines that enhance the appearance and
functionality of the buildings on-site. Buildings will use a variety of materials on each
building façade, including a minimum of 30 percent brick. Buildings will not have
blank walls exceeding 50 feet in length and will have four-sided architecture, and
screening walls and retaining walls will utilize architectural features consistent with
or complimentary to the building façade.
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
11. Performance Guidelines
The PUD proposes performance standards to mitigate any impact to the
surrounding area. Extensive vehicle maintenance is not permitted, and all activities
must take place within the enclosed buildings with garage doors remaining closed
between the hours of 9pm and 7am. Excessive noise is not permitted, including a
limit of 70 dBA for five continuous seconds with a noise meter located on-site.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
12. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted 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 promote safety and connectivity for
all users, the PUD proposes standards for a shaded, detached sidewalk along
Thomas Road.
13. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan. The
Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the City to
improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the urban heat
island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent health
complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan
provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and developing
shade stipulations in rezoning cases. The PUD narrative includes standards for a
shaded, detached sidewalk along Thomas Road and enhanced shading
requirements for surface parking lots.
14. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification
Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is both
a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a
reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and
maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are signaling strong
future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers
have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within the coming
decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled
with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a
roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000
EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of
electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily charging
infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV
charging infrastructure. The PUD proposes a standard that all garage suites be EV
capable.
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
15. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to - Build the Sustainable
Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes
direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. The PUD incorporates requirements for water conservation in
landscape standards and sustainability sections.
16. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce urban
heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. This goal is
addressed in the Sustainability section of the PUD narrative, which requires a
minimum of two GI techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in
this development.
17. 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. The project will
incorporate recycling as part of its waste management system.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
18. At the time this staff report was written, staff has received two letters in opposition
to this request. Concerns include incompatibility with the surrounding area, noise
concerns, and a missed opportunity for housing or other services needed in the
area.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
19. The Street Transportation Department commented that 50 feet of right-of-way shall
be dedicated for the south half of Thomas Road, unused driveways shall be
replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter, and the developer shall construct all
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
streets within and adjacent to the development with all required improvements and
comply with ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 through 4.
OTHER
20. The Aviation Department requested that the property owner record documents that
disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to
future owners or tenants of the property. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
21. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 6.
22. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
23. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new development at an appropriate location with
appropriate development standards.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade and detached
sidewalks.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Arcadia Motor Club PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the following: City
Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 8, D. Development Standards, D2. Minimum Landscape Standards
Table, Row a, North: Delete “shall be landscape per E3.a.”
2. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the south
half of Thomas Road.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
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. 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.
7. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Anthony Grande
October 23, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped October 20, 2025
Conceptual Elevations date stamped June 25, 2025
Community Correspondence (4 pages)
Arcadia Motor Club PUD development narrative date stamped October 20, 2025
From: Crystal DeVelis
To: PDD Long Range Planning; PDD Ombudsman; PDD Camelback East VPC; Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC;
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC;
Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC
Cc: AONA
Subject: Z-91-25 - southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 6:53:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Reader.
Please note my strong objection to the above PUD, and every other PUD affecting the City of
Phoenix. The PUD process is a broken one and has subjected residents to developments far
different from the published applications: The process to get a PUD approved is
comprehensive, but the process to modify an approved PUD is totally devoid of any public
input: From the PUD procedure outline: Major Amendments are very narrowly defined.
"Minor Amendments Minor Amendment requests should be addressed in a letter, including
relevant supplemental materials, to the Planning Director with fee." The power to decide what
is major and what is minor is left to administrative staff. This has consistently resulted in the
building of developments far removed from the initial public narrative. Some "minor"
amendments can have a major effect on the scope of the project.
Specifically, Please note my objection to the above proposed PUD Z-91-25. While the
objectives may be noble, the wording of the PUD offers absolutely no protection to
surrounding neighborhoods from undue noise, fumes, and traffic. The activities at such a
facility will be markedly increased during January when all the car auctions are conducted.
This will cause a burst of activity, noise, and traffic. The narrative is deficient in protection of
quiet enjoyment for the surrounding neighborhood.
From page 6: "The Arcadia Motor Club is a two-story vehicle storage facility containing 26
individually owned suites intended to be for purchase/ownership and will be marketed towards
owners of exotic, luxury, classic, or otherwise high-value automobiles. In addition to secure
vehicle storage, each suite may include amenities such as private restrooms, lounge seating,
televisions, and game tables, offering owners a functional and comfortable environment for
their enjoyment (the “Project”)."
From Page 7: "Maximum building height will not exceed one-story in accordance with C-2
development standards and consistent with surrounding development."
OBJECTION: So is it a single story or a two-story development? Another inconsistency that
can be modified without public comment.
From Page 10: "a. Minimum Vehicle Parking 1 parking space is required to be provided on
site outside of individual garage suites. This parking space shall be ADA compliant in
accordance with Section 702.G."
OBJECTION: One parking space is not enough, particularly if there is to be a "communal
clubhouse" facility on site.
From Page 10: "b. Off-Street Loading Spaces None required"
OBJECTION: High-value vehicles are often transported in commercial trailers, requiring a
large amount of space for loading and unloading.
From page 13: "a. Vehicle Maintenance Suite owners should not perform extensive
performance tuning, autobody work, or vehicle repair that produces noxious fumes,
unreasonable noise, or which exceeds the normal parameters of everyday vehicle
maintenance."
OBJECTION: It does not prohibit performance of such activity, and includes the caveat of
"extensive." The removal of the word "extensive" would completely change the character of
the establishment and would traditionally be considered a "minor" alteration that would go
through without any public comment. Just saying owners "should not" is not the same as
prohibiting.
Also from Page 13: "c. Sound Sounds levels measured at the north, south, west and east
property lines shall not exceed 70 dBA for more than five continuous seconds. A minimum of
one (1) noise meter shall be maintained on site at all times to monitor sound levels."
OBJECTION: Let's have the fox guard the hen house. Who will enforce such restrictions?
What are the penalties? This statement has no consequence and therefore gives no protection
to the surrounding residents.
It's time to modify the PUD process to ensure that it affords protection to the taxpayers and
voters of existing neighborhoods.
-- Crystal DeVelis
4351 E. Whitton Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85018
From: wendell hill
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Re: application no: Z-91-25-6
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 10:54:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande
I am writing as a resident of 5300 E. Thomas Road to express my strong opposition
to the proposed construction of a high-end auto storage facility on this site, which is
situated between two apartment buildings. The proposal is incompatible with needs,
character and economic reality of our community and I urge the planning department
to deny approval of this rezoning effort for the following reasons:
1) Lack of Community Benefit and Mismatch with Neighborhood Needs.
The proposed facility serves no functional purpose for the local residents, many of
whom live on fixed or modest incomes and do not own- nor need to store- luxury or high-
end vehicles. Rather than addressing the urgent community needs for more affordable
housing, family services, grocery stores or a community park for the current residents,
the facility prioritizes an ultra-niche/wealthy external client with no ties to this
immediate area.
2) Negative Impact on Livability and Safety
The proposed luxury car storage operation will most likely increase traffic, noise,
lighting pollution and would disrupt the surrounding residential environment. These
concerns are especially problematic in a residential setting where families, seniors
and working individuals live. Luxury car facilities require transport leading to an
endless parade of car haulers and truck transport vehicles adding to the noise of the
neighborhood. Increased lighting, surveillance equipment or high value vehicles may
attract unwanted attention or crime diminishing the sense of safety in an otherwise
peaceful area.
3) Incompatible with Residential Zoning and Urban Planning Goals.
A commercial facility is incompatible with the residential zoning and neighborhood
character. Placing a private luxury-owned facility between two long standing
multifamily housing apartment buildings contradicts Phoenix's vision for inclusive,
community-first development. This is more appropriate for an industrial, commercial,
or high-net-worth enclave like areas north of Indian School Road, not in the heart of a
working-class neighborhood
.
4) Missed opportunity for Inclusive Development
The site would be far better utilized for a community-oriented project- such as
affordable housing, a neighborhood park, a child-care center, and a small grocery
store. A new housing project is nearing completion at the intersection of E. Thomas
Road and 56th street, adding to the demand for community-oriented projects. Uses
listed above would provide a tangible public benefit, consistent with the city's stated
goals of addressing housing equity and fostering inclusive growth
5) No Clear Economic or Employment Benefit
High end auto-storage is a low-job creation operation. It offers no local employment,
minimal tax benefit and zero investment into the immediate community. At best, it
becomes a silent warehouse for vehicles owned by individuals who do not reside here
and contribute little or nothing to our neighborhood fabric.
Approving this rezone to a PUD would send a troubling message-that developers can
prioritize ultra-wealthy, out -of -the-area interests over the well-being and dignity of our local
residents. I respectfully ask the City of Phoenix and the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer
to reject this proposal and instead encourage land use that supports, uplifts, and includes the
people who actually live here.
Thank you for your consideration,
Wendell Hill - local resident
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2025
Request From R-5
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow a self-service storage facility and R-5
uses
Location Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of
54th Street and Thomas Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 17-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the surrounding context,
the proposed zoning district, and the staff recommendation, including the recommended
stipulations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the subject site and the proposal, highlighting the changes
made since the last presentation, including the addition of landscape setbacks on the
sides, a prohibition on commercial auto repair, a restriction on owners living in units,
and noise limits.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Sharaby noted that some of the changes made seem very
restrictive and questioned if it would harm the viability of the project. Mr. Maerowitz
replied that the developer is comfortable with the limitations in the PUD.
Committee Member Abbott asked what zoning district would be required for this use.
Mr. Maerowitz replied that it would require C-2 zoning.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6
Committee Member Eichelkraut noted that street racing has been an issue in the
area. Committee Member Swart provided additional context about police enforcement
of street racing.
Committee Member Schmieder asked how much a unit will cost. Mr. Maerowitz
replied approximately 800,000 dollars.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION:
Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen made a motion to recommend approval of Z-
91-25-6, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Schmieder seconded the
motion.
Committee Member Whitesell stated that this property could be a housing property,
and the staff report does not mention the Housing Phoenix Plan, adding that approving
a luxury vehicle garage at this location defies logic.
VOTE:
17-1; motion to recommend approval of Z-91-25-6, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut,
Grace, Jurayeva, Langmade, McClelland, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd,
Williams, Paceley, and Fischbach in favor. Committee Member Whitesell opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 649
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Request From R-5
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow a self-service storage facility and R-5
uses
Location Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of
54th Street and Thomas Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee Member Jurayeva joined the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 17
members.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the proposed site, surrounding context and streets, the
proposed development and design and performance standards, noting noise limits and
a prohibition on outdoor activities.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Sharaby asked if the developer had built this type of development
before and what would be the size of the units. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the
developer had not built this type of development before and that the height inside the
units would be 30 feet. Mr. Sharaby asked whether there would be any outdoor
activities. Mr. Maerowitz replied there would be a requirement written into the PUD that
would not allow outdoor activities.
Committee Member Todd asked for clarification on the proposed side building
setbacks. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the proposal is for the buildings to abut the
property line.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6 - Info Only
Committee Member Noel noted that many applications are presented to the
Committee based on the fact there is a need for housing in Phoenix and asked why
housing couldn’t be constructed here, and if the existing R-5 is not feasible. Mr.
Maerowitz replied that the site is rather narrow and it would be challenging to do many
units here.
Committee Member Guevar asked about pedestrian access at the side lot lines. Mr.
Maerowitz replied there would not be pedestrian access to the adjacent properties. Mr.
Guevar asked if powerlines would be undergrounded, if the units would be owned
individually, and if there would be customizations for each unit. Mr. Maerowitz replied
that the units would be owned, the powerlines are not able to be undergrounded, and
that the builder will allow customizations for each unit.
Mr. Sharaby asked about the cost for each unit. Mr. Maerowitz replied it would likely
be about 800,000 dollars for a finished product. Mr. Sharaby asked if someone could
live in the unit. Mr. Maerowitz replied that it’s not anticipated that people would live in
the units, but someone could choose to stay there, noting that the units would be
finished with bathrooms.
Committee Member Whitesell asked how far the neighboring building to the west is
set back from the property line. Mr. Maerowitz replied it is about 5 feet and does not
have much landscaping. Mr. Whitesell asked about the driveway width and the
distinction between self storage and a repair garage. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the
driveway is around 55 feet wide and that the expectation is not that extensive vehicle
repairs would be conducted on site.
Committee Member Jurayeva asked if there are any design photos of the interior of
the units. Mr. Maerowitz replied that they would consider having some for the next
hearing.
Committee Member Grace asked if the CC&Rs will limit business in each garage. Mr.
Maerowitz replied that the CC&Rs have not been drafted yet.
Chair Fischbach stated that the applicant should give thought to adding restrictions in
the PUD regarding what activities can be done in each garage unit.
Committee Member McClelland asked if this type of development has been done
before. Mr. Maerowitz replied that there are examples of this in Arizona. Mr. Sharaby
noted they are prevalent in the Scottsdale Airpark, and people will be working on the
cars and a certain amount of noise will be made.
Mr. Grande provided context about the allowance of residential use in the PUD. Chair
Fischbach noted that the applicant should consider a restriction in the PUD on
overnight stays.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 651
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6 - Info Only
Committee Member Schmieder asked how noise will be managed. Mr. Maerowitz
replied that they considered that cars can be loud and have added noise limits that can
be enforced by the City and will be in the CC&Rs.
Ms. Schmieder asked about outreach conducted to adjacent neighbors. Mr. Maerowitz
replied that letters were sent to the owners of the apartments, but they haven’t heard
from them.
Committee Member Guevar asked for an analysis of why this project is the highest
and best use for the site.
Ms. Jurayeva asked how many cars would fit in each garage. Mr. Maerowitz replied
they could fit up to 4 cars.
Committee Member Langmade asked about security measures for the cars.
Committee Member Swart replied that it would be a gated development and that these
would mostly be luxury cars that have enhanced security by the owners.
Committee Member Swart commented that when the police are called for a noise
complaint, they do not have the proper equipment to measure the decibel level. Mr.
Maerowitz replied that the zoning ordinance does have decibel limits and the City has
issued violations for noise.
Ms. Schmieder asked if noise levels have been an issue at these types of
developments. Mr. Swart replied that many exotic cars are over 70 decibels, but the
owners tend to take very good care of the cars and likely don’t make much noise with
the engines.
Mr. Sharaby noted that this development will be busy because of its location in town.
Chair Fischbach suggested the applicant consider qualitative limits regarding the noise
issue.
Mr. Guevar suggested looking into sound dampening building materials and plants.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 652
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 13
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-91-25-6 (Arcadia Motor Club PUD)
Location: Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of 54th Street and
Thomas Road
From: R-5
To: PUD
Acreage: 1.45
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow a self-service storage facility and
R-5 uses
Applicant: GO Industrial, LLC
Owner: 5301 East Thomas Road, LLC
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 9/9/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 11/4/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 17-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion:
Commissioner Sorenson made a MOTION to deny Z-91-25-6. Vice-Chairman Boyd seconded
that motion. The MOTION failed by a vote of 4-5 (Busching, Gorraiz, Hu, James, Odegard-
Begay).
Another motion was made as detailed below.
Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to approve Z-91-25-6, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: James
Vote: 5-4 (Boyd, Jaramillo, Matthews, Sorenson)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new development at an appropriate location with appropriate
development standards.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade and detached sidewalks.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Arcadia Motor Club PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped
October 20, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the following: City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 8, D. Development Standards, D2. Minimum Landscape Standards Table, Row
a, North: Delete “shall be landscape per E3.a.”
2. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the south half of
Thomas Road.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any broken or out-
of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and upgrade all off-site
improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
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. 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.
7. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and
delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT E
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-91-25-6 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION opposition X applicant
Approximately 320
feet west of the
southwest corner of
54th Street and
Thomas Road
APPEALED FROM: PC 12/4/2025
7140 North 20th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 1/7/2026
HEARING Larry Whitesell
602-370-8453
thepeakna@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The Planning Commission voted 5 Yes and 4 No on a motion to approve the
application. The chairperson stated she was on the fence about how to vote and was
the deciding Yes vote. This matter warrants consideration by the City Council.
RECEIVED BY: 12/11/2025 RECEIVED ON: Camryn Thompson
Joshua Bednarek Teresa Garcia/ Andrew Birkelbach
Tricia Gomes Micah Alexander
Racelle Escolar PDD GIS
Sarah Stockham Byron Easton (for PHO appeals only)
Adam Stranieri Village Planner - Anthony Grande
Heather Klotz Applicant
Stephanie Vasquez
REVISED 12/11/2025 vcm
ATTACHMENT F
October 23, 2025
To:
Planning and Development Department
200 West Washington, 2nd Floor,
Phoenix,Arizona, 85003
From:
John Kobierowski
5245 E Thomas Road
Pheonix, Arizona 85018
Subject: Support letter for Arcadia Motor Club, PUD Rezoning Case No. Z-91-25-6
Dear Members of the Phoenix City Council,
As the owner of the Venture on 52nd Apartments, the multi-family residential property located at
5245 E. Thomas Road, which is west of and immediately adjacent to the proposed Arcadia
Motor Club project at 5301 E. Thomas Road, I wish to express my written support for Case No.
Z-91-25-6 and request your decision to approve this rezoning proposal.
I have spoken with the applicant and I understand that approval of this rezoning request will
facilitate the redevelopment of this vacant dirt lot into a luxury condominium car club facility,
helping to enhance the community with high-quality development and attractive future
investment to this area. I appreciate that this project is a quiet and low-traffic generating land-use
as well as the overall building height restriction of 34 feet, which I understand is lower than
otherwise permitted under existing R-5 zoning.
I look forward to having Arcadia Motor Club as a neighbor following your approval of this
rezoning case. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request.
ohn Kobierowski
Venture on 52nd LLC, an Arizona limited liability company
ATTACHMENT G
From: Larry Whitesell
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Item 13 Case Z-91-25-6 Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 2025
Attachments: Z-91-25 Whitesell Oppo Submission - Planning Commission.pdf
Dear Planning Commission Members -
Regarding Item 13 Case Z-91-25-6 on the agenda for the 4 December 2025 meeting, please find attached
my opposition to the application for the Arcadia Auto Club PUD.
I look forward to speaking at the upcoming meeting. Hopefully you will find this advance submission of
my comments helpful in your careful consideration of this case.
Larry Whitesell, Co-chair
the PEAK NA
602-370-8453
1 658
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4, 2025
Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
OPPOSITION POSITION
This case begs the question: What are the priorities: Housing people or housing vehicles?
I. Arcadia Auto Club Application
A. Prioritizes 100% vehicle storage and zero dwelling units
B. Does not support the City’s priority of creating and preserving more housing
1. 1.5 acre parcel zoned R-5 could provide 65 dwelling units, by right.
(43.5 DU/acre)
2. 1.5 acre parcel would typically be approved for 120 – 140 multifamily units with
rezoning to PUD (60-70 DU/acre)
C. Is not consistent with the General Plan
II. Sta Report
A. Pg 3, item 2: “The proposal for self-service storage use is not consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Map designation….”
B. Pg 2: Lists meeting these applicable city priorities:
C. Does not include the highest priority: the Housing Phoenix Initiative
III. Recent City Council actions prioritize dwelling units over other zoning ordinances
A. E ectively eliminated single family residential zoning to address the housing shortage
1 dwelling unit at a time
Per Attachment A – Housing Phoenix Quarterly Report July 2025-September 2025, pg 1
1. Reduced the number of parking spaces in multifamily housing units to provide more
dwelling units instead of parking (Multifamily Parking TA)
2. Allowed up to 3 dwelling units on single family zoned districts throughout the city
(ADU TA)
3. Allowed up to 4 dwelling units (fourplexes) on single family zoned parcels in the
central business district (Middle Housing TA)
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4, 2025
Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
OPPOSITION POSITION
Page 2
B. Other recent council actions prioritize residential use
1. Allowed redevelopment of commercial property to residential use without going
through the rezoning process (Multifamily residential development and adaptive
reuse)
2. Restricted data storage facilities from locating in areas that could be used for
housing
IV. There is a luxury vehicle storage development already within a half mile of this proposed
project. 2823 N 48th St. Hightail - “Arcadia's first luxury car condo project!”
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4, 2025
Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
OPPOSITION POSITION
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A – Housing Phoenix Plan Quarterly Report – July 2025-Septermber 2025, pg 1
From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 4:17 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Please oppose 12.6.25 agenda item 13: Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
Dear Planning Commissioners,
In recent years I have seen a great many zoning changes in residential areas from single family or low
density zones to high density multifamily. These zoning changes are approved even when they violate the
general plan and harm nearby neighbors. The public is told these changes are necessary because
Phoenix desperately needs more housing. Somehow, the general plan, which is updated regularly and
distributes land uses throughout the city in a rational way, is consistently out of date, even minutes after
it is adopted by a vote of the Phoenix citizenry. Ignoring the general plan overlooks the fact that many city
decisions about infrastructure and the allocation of services are based on the plan. Not following the
plan creates inefficiency, thus reducing the quality of services and increasing costs for all Phoenix
residents.
The property in this case is at a location where the current zoning is high density residential and that
zoning is what is in the general plan. The site is therefore assured sufficient infrastructure and services
for the anticipated residents. Yet instead of creating much needed housing for people, the proposed
zoning change would provide expensive parking for cars.
I don't understand.
Since Phoenix needs more housing, why not build it where it is planned for instead of putting it where it
doesn't belong? Does the general plan represent the city's vision for the future - an orderly layout of land
uses that are supported by infrastructure and services? Or is it like a model home-- just a design
suggestion that property owners need not follow?
I urge you to oppose Z-91-25-6 and support increased housing where it is planned and currently zoned.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jackie Rich
Report
(Arcadia Motor Club PUD) - Approximately 320 Feet West of the Southwest
Corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road (Ordinance G-7473) - District 6
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-91-25-
6 and rezone the site from R-5 (Multifamily Residence District - Restricted
Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow a self-service storage
facility and R-5 uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-5
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 1.45
Proposal: Self-service storage facility and R-5 uses
Owner: 5301 East Thomas Rd LLC
Applicant: GO Industrial, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
item on September 9, 2025, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this item on
November 4, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 17-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on December 4, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 5-4.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member. A
public hearing is required for this item.
Location
Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas
Road Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 5303 E. Thomas Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-91-25-6) FROM R-5 (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT – RESTRICTED 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 1.45-acre site located approximately 320 feet
west of the southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road in a portion of Section
32, Township 2 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from “R-5” (Multifamily Residence District – Restricted 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,
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 Arcadia Motor Club PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the following: City
Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 8, D. Development Standards, D2. Minimum Landscape Standards
Table, Row a, North: Delete “shall be landscape per E3.a.”
2. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
south half of Thomas Road.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA
guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
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. 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.
7. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of January,
2026.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-91-25-6
A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 56TH STREET AND THOMAS ROAD,
BEING A BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF THOMAS ROAD, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1809.04 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THOMAS ROAD AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, LEAVING SAID
RIGHT OF WAY, FOR A DISTANCE OF 368.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 56 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
157.33 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
368.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THOMAS
ROAD;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
157.20 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
Arcadia Motor Club PUD
October 23, 2025
Camelback East Village Planning November 4, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 4, 2025
Request From: R-5 (Multifamily Residence District –
Restricted Commercial) (1.45 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (1.45
acres)
Proposal: PUD to allow a self-service storage facility
and R-5 uses
Location: Approximately 320 feet west of the
southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas
Road
Owner: 5301 East Thomas Road, LLC
Applicant: GO Industrial, LLC
Representative: Mike Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
acre
Street Map
Thomas Road Arterial 40-foot south half street
Classification
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for self-service storage garages at the proposed scale is appropriate for
this location along an arterial street.
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
General Plan Conformity
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent
negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The proposal will have a height limit and landscape setbacks that are sensitive to the
adjacent residential properties.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed PUD sets forth development standards that require enhanced
landscaping and shade, including detached sidewalks and minimum shade
requirements for sidewalks and parking areas. This will help to provide shade for
pedestrians and bicyclists in and around the community and to mitigate the urban heat
island effect by covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the
vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 12.
Shade Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 13.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 14.
Conservation Measures for New Development – See Background Item No. 15.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan – See Background Item No. 16.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 17.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant land R-5
North (across Thomas
Single-family residential R1-6
Road)
East Multifamily residential PAD-15
South Multifamily residential R-3
West Multifamily residential R-5
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 1.45-acre site located approximately 320 feet west of
the southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road from R-5 (Multifamily
Residential District – Restricted Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
for the Arcadia Motor Club PUD to allow a self-service storage facility and R-5 uses.
The subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix in 1956 and has been zoned
R-5 since 1961.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
2. The subject site and adjacent properties
to the west, east, and south are
designated as Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre on the General
Plan Land Use Map. To the north, across
Thomas Road, is designated Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
The proposal for self-service storage use
is not consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Map designation; however, a General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
General Plan Amendment is not required Planning and Development Department
since the site is less than 10 acres.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. The subject site is vacant land zoned
R-5. To the north, across Thomas
Road, is single-family residential zoned
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence
District). To the east is multifamily
residential zoned PAD-15 (Planned
Area Development). To the south is
multifamily residential zoned R-3
(Multifamily Residence District). To the
west is multifamily residential zoned R-
5.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that
produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5. The PUD proposes to develop the site with a self-service storage warehouse use,
which would have 26 garage condo units, marketed to exotic, luxury, or classic
automobile owners, in addition to a clubhouse. Individual units may include
amenities such as private restrooms, lounge seating, televisions, and game tables.
6. Land Use
The proposed development narrative allows a self-service storage warehouse and
all uses permitted within the R-5 zoning district. The narrative prohibits
manufacturing, fabrication, commercial automotive repair, and retail sales to
maintain compatibility with the surrounding area.
7. Development Standards
The table below summarizes the key development standards set forth in the
narrative for self-service storage use, which are most analogous to the C-3 district.
The proposed PUD allows greater height and lot coverage than permitted in the C-3
district and requires smaller setbacks than the C-3 district. The PUD shading
standards exceed those of the C-3 district.
Standard PUD Proposed
Maximum Building 34 feet
Height
Maximum Lot 58 percent
Coverage
Minimum Perimeter North (Thomas Road): 15 feet (west of driveway); 5
Building Setbacks feet (east of driveway)
East: 5 feet
West: 5 feet
South: 0 feet
Vehicular Parking 1 space outside of garage units for self-storage use;
per Section 702 for all other uses.
Shade Public sidewalks: 75 percent minimum; Surface parking
lots: 25 percent minimum
The standards in the table above only apply to the proposed self-service storage
use. All other uses would follow the R-5 development standards, which includes
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
multifamily residential use at a maximum of 52.2 dwelling units per acre and a
maximum height of 4 stories, 48 feet.
8. Landscape Standards
The PUD sets forth standards for perimeter landscape setbacks and landscaping
within adjacent rights-of-way. The table below summarizes the key landscape
standards. The landscape setbacks proposed in the PUD are smaller than those
required in the C-3 district. The streetscape standards exceed the requirements of
the C-3 district.
Standard PUD Proposed
Minimum Landscape North (Thomas Road): Area between back of sidewalk
Setbacks and the building (Approximately 15 feet (west of
driveway) and 5 feet (east of driveway))
East: 5 feet
West: 5 feet
South: 0 feet
Planting Standards North: minimum 2-inch caliper trees, planted 25 feet on
(Perimeter Landscape center; five shrub species and two accent species; 75%
Setbacks) live groundcover
East/west: minimum one 5-gallon Hopseed Bush,
planted 8 feet on center; 50% live groundcover.
Planting Standards Thomas Road: one 5-gallon shrub planted 5 feet on
(Right-of-way) center; five shrub species and two accent species; 75%
live groundcover
Streetscape Thomas Road: 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk, 10-foot-
wide planting area between back of curb and sidewalk;
75 percent sidewalk shade
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 1.b to remove the reference to the landscape
design section for clarity.
9. Lighting
The PUD proposes compliance with Zoning Ordinance standards related to lighting
with additional lighting requirements that lighting shall be provided every 30 feet
along the internal driveway and that lighting shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
10. Design Guidelines
The PUD proposes design guidelines that enhance the appearance and
functionality of the buildings on-site. Buildings will use a variety of materials on each
building façade, including a minimum of 30 percent brick. Buildings will not have
blank walls exceeding 50 feet in length and will have four-sided architecture, and
screening walls and retaining walls will utilize architectural features consistent with
or complimentary to the building façade.
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
11. Performance Guidelines
The PUD proposes performance standards to mitigate any impact to the
surrounding area. Extensive vehicle maintenance is not permitted, and all activities
must take place within the enclosed buildings with garage doors remaining closed
between the hours of 9pm and 7am. Excessive noise is not permitted, including a
limit of 70 dBA for five continuous seconds with a noise meter located on-site.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
12. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted 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 promote safety and connectivity for
all users, the PUD proposes standards for a shaded, detached sidewalk along
Thomas Road.
13. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan. The
Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the City to
improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the urban heat
island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent health
complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan
provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and developing
shade stipulations in rezoning cases. The PUD narrative includes standards for a
shaded, detached sidewalk along Thomas Road and enhanced shading
requirements for surface parking lots.
14. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification
Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is both
a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a
reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and
maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are signaling strong
future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers
have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within the coming
decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled
with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a
roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000
EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of
electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily charging
infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV
charging infrastructure. The PUD proposes a standard that all garage suites be EV
capable.
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
15. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to - Build the Sustainable
Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes
direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. The PUD incorporates requirements for water conservation in
landscape standards and sustainability sections.
16. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce urban
heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. This goal is
addressed in the Sustainability section of the PUD narrative, which requires a
minimum of two GI techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in
this development.
17. 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. The project will
incorporate recycling as part of its waste management system.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
18. At the time this staff report was written, staff has received two letters in opposition
to this request. Concerns include incompatibility with the surrounding area, noise
concerns, and a missed opportunity for housing or other services needed in the
area.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
19. The Street Transportation Department commented that 50 feet of right-of-way shall
be dedicated for the south half of Thomas Road, unused driveways shall be
replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter, and the developer shall construct all
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
streets within and adjacent to the development with all required improvements and
comply with ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 through 4.
OTHER
20. The Aviation Department requested that the property owner record documents that
disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Sky Harbor Airport to
future owners or tenants of the property. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
21. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 6.
22. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
23. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new development at an appropriate location with
appropriate development standards.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade and detached
sidewalks.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Arcadia Motor Club PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped October 20, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the following: City
Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 8, D. Development Standards, D2. Minimum Landscape Standards
Table, Row a, North: Delete “shall be landscape per E3.a.”
2. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the south
half of Thomas Road.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
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. 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.
7. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
Writer
Anthony Grande
October 23, 2025
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Staff Report: Z-91-25-6
October 23, 2025
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped October 20, 2025
Conceptual Elevations date stamped June 25, 2025
Community Correspondence (4 pages)
Arcadia Motor Club PUD development narrative date stamped October 20, 2025
From: Crystal DeVelis
To: PDD Long Range Planning; PDD Ombudsman; PDD Camelback East VPC; Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC;
Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC;
Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC
Cc: AONA
Subject: Z-91-25 - southwest corner of 54th Street and Thomas Road
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 6:53:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Reader.
Please note my strong objection to the above PUD, and every other PUD affecting the City of
Phoenix. The PUD process is a broken one and has subjected residents to developments far
different from the published applications: The process to get a PUD approved is
comprehensive, but the process to modify an approved PUD is totally devoid of any public
input: From the PUD procedure outline: Major Amendments are very narrowly defined.
"Minor Amendments Minor Amendment requests should be addressed in a letter, including
relevant supplemental materials, to the Planning Director with fee." The power to decide what
is major and what is minor is left to administrative staff. This has consistently resulted in the
building of developments far removed from the initial public narrative. Some "minor"
amendments can have a major effect on the scope of the project.
Specifically, Please note my objection to the above proposed PUD Z-91-25. While the
objectives may be noble, the wording of the PUD offers absolutely no protection to
surrounding neighborhoods from undue noise, fumes, and traffic. The activities at such a
facility will be markedly increased during January when all the car auctions are conducted.
This will cause a burst of activity, noise, and traffic. The narrative is deficient in protection of
quiet enjoyment for the surrounding neighborhood.
From page 6: "The Arcadia Motor Club is a two-story vehicle storage facility containing 26
individually owned suites intended to be for purchase/ownership and will be marketed towards
owners of exotic, luxury, classic, or otherwise high-value automobiles. In addition to secure
vehicle storage, each suite may include amenities such as private restrooms, lounge seating,
televisions, and game tables, offering owners a functional and comfortable environment for
their enjoyment (the “Project”)."
From Page 7: "Maximum building height will not exceed one-story in accordance with C-2
development standards and consistent with surrounding development."
OBJECTION: So is it a single story or a two-story development? Another inconsistency that
can be modified without public comment.
From Page 10: "a. Minimum Vehicle Parking 1 parking space is required to be provided on
site outside of individual garage suites. This parking space shall be ADA compliant in
accordance with Section 702.G."
OBJECTION: One parking space is not enough, particularly if there is to be a "communal
clubhouse" facility on site.
From Page 10: "b. Off-Street Loading Spaces None required"
OBJECTION: High-value vehicles are often transported in commercial trailers, requiring a
large amount of space for loading and unloading.
From page 13: "a. Vehicle Maintenance Suite owners should not perform extensive
performance tuning, autobody work, or vehicle repair that produces noxious fumes,
unreasonable noise, or which exceeds the normal parameters of everyday vehicle
maintenance."
OBJECTION: It does not prohibit performance of such activity, and includes the caveat of
"extensive." The removal of the word "extensive" would completely change the character of
the establishment and would traditionally be considered a "minor" alteration that would go
through without any public comment. Just saying owners "should not" is not the same as
prohibiting.
Also from Page 13: "c. Sound Sounds levels measured at the north, south, west and east
property lines shall not exceed 70 dBA for more than five continuous seconds. A minimum of
one (1) noise meter shall be maintained on site at all times to monitor sound levels."
OBJECTION: Let's have the fox guard the hen house. Who will enforce such restrictions?
What are the penalties? This statement has no consequence and therefore gives no protection
to the surrounding residents.
It's time to modify the PUD process to ensure that it affords protection to the taxpayers and
voters of existing neighborhoods.
-- Crystal DeVelis
4351 E. Whitton Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85018
From: wendell hill
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Re: application no: Z-91-25-6
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 10:54:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande
I am writing as a resident of 5300 E. Thomas Road to express my strong opposition
to the proposed construction of a high-end auto storage facility on this site, which is
situated between two apartment buildings. The proposal is incompatible with needs,
character and economic reality of our community and I urge the planning department
to deny approval of this rezoning effort for the following reasons:
1) Lack of Community Benefit and Mismatch with Neighborhood Needs.
The proposed facility serves no functional purpose for the local residents, many of
whom live on fixed or modest incomes and do not own- nor need to store- luxury or high-
end vehicles. Rather than addressing the urgent community needs for more affordable
housing, family services, grocery stores or a community park for the current residents,
the facility prioritizes an ultra-niche/wealthy external client with no ties to this
immediate area.
2) Negative Impact on Livability and Safety
The proposed luxury car storage operation will most likely increase traffic, noise,
lighting pollution and would disrupt the surrounding residential environment. These
concerns are especially problematic in a residential setting where families, seniors
and working individuals live. Luxury car facilities require transport leading to an
endless parade of car haulers and truck transport vehicles adding to the noise of the
neighborhood. Increased lighting, surveillance equipment or high value vehicles may
attract unwanted attention or crime diminishing the sense of safety in an otherwise
peaceful area.
3) Incompatible with Residential Zoning and Urban Planning Goals.
A commercial facility is incompatible with the residential zoning and neighborhood
character. Placing a private luxury-owned facility between two long standing
multifamily housing apartment buildings contradicts Phoenix's vision for inclusive,
community-first development. This is more appropriate for an industrial, commercial,
or high-net-worth enclave like areas north of Indian School Road, not in the heart of a
working-class neighborhood
.
4) Missed opportunity for Inclusive Development
The site would be far better utilized for a community-oriented project- such as
affordable housing, a neighborhood park, a child-care center, and a small grocery
store. A new housing project is nearing completion at the intersection of E. Thomas
Road and 56th street, adding to the demand for community-oriented projects. Uses
listed above would provide a tangible public benefit, consistent with the city's stated
goals of addressing housing equity and fostering inclusive growth
5) No Clear Economic or Employment Benefit
High end auto-storage is a low-job creation operation. It offers no local employment,
minimal tax benefit and zero investment into the immediate community. At best, it
becomes a silent warehouse for vehicles owned by individuals who do not reside here
and contribute little or nothing to our neighborhood fabric.
Approving this rezone to a PUD would send a troubling message-that developers can
prioritize ultra-wealthy, out -of -the-area interests over the well-being and dignity of our local
residents. I respectfully ask the City of Phoenix and the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer
to reject this proposal and instead encourage land use that supports, uplifts, and includes the
people who actually live here.
Thank you for your consideration,
Wendell Hill - local resident
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2025
Request From R-5
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow a self-service storage facility and R-5
uses
Location Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of
54th Street and Thomas Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 17-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation summarizing the surrounding context,
the proposed zoning district, and the staff recommendation, including the recommended
stipulations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the subject site and the proposal, highlighting the changes
made since the last presentation, including the addition of landscape setbacks on the
sides, a prohibition on commercial auto repair, a restriction on owners living in units,
and noise limits.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Sharaby noted that some of the changes made seem very
restrictive and questioned if it would harm the viability of the project. Mr. Maerowitz
replied that the developer is comfortable with the limitations in the PUD.
Committee Member Abbott asked what zoning district would be required for this use.
Mr. Maerowitz replied that it would require C-2 zoning.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6
Committee Member Eichelkraut noted that street racing has been an issue in the
area. Committee Member Swart provided additional context about police enforcement
of street racing.
Committee Member Schmieder asked how much a unit will cost. Mr. Maerowitz
replied approximately 800,000 dollars.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MOTION:
Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen made a motion to recommend approval of Z-
91-25-6, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Schmieder seconded the
motion.
Committee Member Whitesell stated that this property could be a housing property,
and the staff report does not mention the Housing Phoenix Plan, adding that approving
a luxury vehicle garage at this location defies logic.
VOTE:
17-1; motion to recommend approval of Z-91-25-6, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut,
Grace, Jurayeva, Langmade, McClelland, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd,
Williams, Paceley, and Fischbach in favor. Committee Member Whitesell opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 649
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2025
Request From R-5
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow a self-service storage facility and R-5
uses
Location Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of
54th Street and Thomas Road
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee Member Jurayeva joined the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 17
members.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Maerowitz, representing the applicant with Snell & Wilmer, LLP, provided a
presentation summarizing the proposed site, surrounding context and streets, the
proposed development and design and performance standards, noting noise limits and
a prohibition on outdoor activities.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Sharaby asked if the developer had built this type of development
before and what would be the size of the units. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the
developer had not built this type of development before and that the height inside the
units would be 30 feet. Mr. Sharaby asked whether there would be any outdoor
activities. Mr. Maerowitz replied there would be a requirement written into the PUD that
would not allow outdoor activities.
Committee Member Todd asked for clarification on the proposed side building
setbacks. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the proposal is for the buildings to abut the
property line.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6 - Info Only
Committee Member Noel noted that many applications are presented to the
Committee based on the fact there is a need for housing in Phoenix and asked why
housing couldn’t be constructed here, and if the existing R-5 is not feasible. Mr.
Maerowitz replied that the site is rather narrow and it would be challenging to do many
units here.
Committee Member Guevar asked about pedestrian access at the side lot lines. Mr.
Maerowitz replied there would not be pedestrian access to the adjacent properties. Mr.
Guevar asked if powerlines would be undergrounded, if the units would be owned
individually, and if there would be customizations for each unit. Mr. Maerowitz replied
that the units would be owned, the powerlines are not able to be undergrounded, and
that the builder will allow customizations for each unit.
Mr. Sharaby asked about the cost for each unit. Mr. Maerowitz replied it would likely
be about 800,000 dollars for a finished product. Mr. Sharaby asked if someone could
live in the unit. Mr. Maerowitz replied that it’s not anticipated that people would live in
the units, but someone could choose to stay there, noting that the units would be
finished with bathrooms.
Committee Member Whitesell asked how far the neighboring building to the west is
set back from the property line. Mr. Maerowitz replied it is about 5 feet and does not
have much landscaping. Mr. Whitesell asked about the driveway width and the
distinction between self storage and a repair garage. Mr. Maerowitz replied that the
driveway is around 55 feet wide and that the expectation is not that extensive vehicle
repairs would be conducted on site.
Committee Member Jurayeva asked if there are any design photos of the interior of
the units. Mr. Maerowitz replied that they would consider having some for the next
hearing.
Committee Member Grace asked if the CC&Rs will limit business in each garage. Mr.
Maerowitz replied that the CC&Rs have not been drafted yet.
Chair Fischbach stated that the applicant should give thought to adding restrictions in
the PUD regarding what activities can be done in each garage unit.
Committee Member McClelland asked if this type of development has been done
before. Mr. Maerowitz replied that there are examples of this in Arizona. Mr. Sharaby
noted they are prevalent in the Scottsdale Airpark, and people will be working on the
cars and a certain amount of noise will be made.
Mr. Grande provided context about the allowance of residential use in the PUD. Chair
Fischbach noted that the applicant should consider a restriction in the PUD on
overnight stays.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 651
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-25-6 - Info Only
Committee Member Schmieder asked how noise will be managed. Mr. Maerowitz
replied that they considered that cars can be loud and have added noise limits that can
be enforced by the City and will be in the CC&Rs.
Ms. Schmieder asked about outreach conducted to adjacent neighbors. Mr. Maerowitz
replied that letters were sent to the owners of the apartments, but they haven’t heard
from them.
Committee Member Guevar asked for an analysis of why this project is the highest
and best use for the site.
Ms. Jurayeva asked how many cars would fit in each garage. Mr. Maerowitz replied
they could fit up to 4 cars.
Committee Member Langmade asked about security measures for the cars.
Committee Member Swart replied that it would be a gated development and that these
would mostly be luxury cars that have enhanced security by the owners.
Committee Member Swart commented that when the police are called for a noise
complaint, they do not have the proper equipment to measure the decibel level. Mr.
Maerowitz replied that the zoning ordinance does have decibel limits and the City has
issued violations for noise.
Ms. Schmieder asked if noise levels have been an issue at these types of
developments. Mr. Swart replied that many exotic cars are over 70 decibels, but the
owners tend to take very good care of the cars and likely don’t make much noise with
the engines.
Mr. Sharaby noted that this development will be busy because of its location in town.
Chair Fischbach suggested the applicant consider qualitative limits regarding the noise
issue.
Mr. Guevar suggested looking into sound dampening building materials and plants.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 652
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 13
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-91-25-6 (Arcadia Motor Club PUD)
Location: Approximately 320 feet west of the southwest corner of 54th Street and
Thomas Road
From: R-5
To: PUD
Acreage: 1.45
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow a self-service storage facility and
R-5 uses
Applicant: GO Industrial, LLC
Owner: 5301 East Thomas Road, LLC
Representative: Michael Maerowitz, Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 9/9/2025 Information only.
Camelback East 11/4/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 17-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion:
Commissioner Sorenson made a MOTION to deny Z-91-25-6. Vice-Chairman Boyd seconded
that motion. The MOTION failed by a vote of 4-5 (Busching, Gorraiz, Hu, James, Odegard-
Begay).
Another motion was made as detailed below.
Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to approve Z-91-25-6, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: James
Vote: 5-4 (Boyd, Jaramillo, Matthews, Sorenson)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the character of the surrounding area.
2. The proposal will facilitate new development at an appropriate location with appropriate
development standards.
3. The proposed PUD sets forth design and development standards that will enhance
connectivity in the immediate vicinity, including enhanced shade and detached sidewalks.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Arcadia Motor Club PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped
October 20, 2025, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the following: City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].
b. Page 8, D. Development Standards, D2. Minimum Landscape Standards Table, Row
a, North: Delete “shall be landscape per E3.a.”
2. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the south half of
Thomas Road.
3. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any broken or out-
of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and upgrade all off-site
improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines.
4. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
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. 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.
7. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of
claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and
delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT E
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-91-25-6 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION opposition X applicant
Approximately 320
feet west of the
southwest corner of
54th Street and
Thomas Road
APPEALED FROM: PC 12/4/2025
7140 North 20th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 1/7/2026
HEARING Larry Whitesell
602-370-8453
thepeakna@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The Planning Commission voted 5 Yes and 4 No on a motion to approve the
application. The chairperson stated she was on the fence about how to vote and was
the deciding Yes vote. This matter warrants consideration by the City Council.
RECEIVED BY: 12/11/2025 RECEIVED ON: Camryn Thompson
Joshua Bednarek Teresa Garcia/ Andrew Birkelbach
Tricia Gomes Micah Alexander
Racelle Escolar PDD GIS
Sarah Stockham Byron Easton (for PHO appeals only)
Adam Stranieri Village Planner - Anthony Grande
Heather Klotz Applicant
Stephanie Vasquez
REVISED 12/11/2025 vcm
ATTACHMENT F
October 23, 2025
To:
Planning and Development Department
200 West Washington, 2nd Floor,
Phoenix,Arizona, 85003
From:
John Kobierowski
5245 E Thomas Road
Pheonix, Arizona 85018
Subject: Support letter for Arcadia Motor Club, PUD Rezoning Case No. Z-91-25-6
Dear Members of the Phoenix City Council,
As the owner of the Venture on 52nd Apartments, the multi-family residential property located at
5245 E. Thomas Road, which is west of and immediately adjacent to the proposed Arcadia
Motor Club project at 5301 E. Thomas Road, I wish to express my written support for Case No.
Z-91-25-6 and request your decision to approve this rezoning proposal.
I have spoken with the applicant and I understand that approval of this rezoning request will
facilitate the redevelopment of this vacant dirt lot into a luxury condominium car club facility,
helping to enhance the community with high-quality development and attractive future
investment to this area. I appreciate that this project is a quiet and low-traffic generating land-use
as well as the overall building height restriction of 34 feet, which I understand is lower than
otherwise permitted under existing R-5 zoning.
I look forward to having Arcadia Motor Club as a neighbor following your approval of this
rezoning case. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request.
ohn Kobierowski
Venture on 52nd LLC, an Arizona limited liability company
ATTACHMENT G
From: Larry Whitesell
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Item 13 Case Z-91-25-6 Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 2025
Attachments: Z-91-25 Whitesell Oppo Submission - Planning Commission.pdf
Dear Planning Commission Members -
Regarding Item 13 Case Z-91-25-6 on the agenda for the 4 December 2025 meeting, please find attached
my opposition to the application for the Arcadia Auto Club PUD.
I look forward to speaking at the upcoming meeting. Hopefully you will find this advance submission of
my comments helpful in your careful consideration of this case.
Larry Whitesell, Co-chair
the PEAK NA
602-370-8453
1 658
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4, 2025
Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
OPPOSITION POSITION
This case begs the question: What are the priorities: Housing people or housing vehicles?
I. Arcadia Auto Club Application
A. Prioritizes 100% vehicle storage and zero dwelling units
B. Does not support the City’s priority of creating and preserving more housing
1. 1.5 acre parcel zoned R-5 could provide 65 dwelling units, by right.
(43.5 DU/acre)
2. 1.5 acre parcel would typically be approved for 120 – 140 multifamily units with
rezoning to PUD (60-70 DU/acre)
C. Is not consistent with the General Plan
II. Sta Report
A. Pg 3, item 2: “The proposal for self-service storage use is not consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Map designation….”
B. Pg 2: Lists meeting these applicable city priorities:
C. Does not include the highest priority: the Housing Phoenix Initiative
III. Recent City Council actions prioritize dwelling units over other zoning ordinances
A. E ectively eliminated single family residential zoning to address the housing shortage
1 dwelling unit at a time
Per Attachment A – Housing Phoenix Quarterly Report July 2025-September 2025, pg 1
1. Reduced the number of parking spaces in multifamily housing units to provide more
dwelling units instead of parking (Multifamily Parking TA)
2. Allowed up to 3 dwelling units on single family zoned districts throughout the city
(ADU TA)
3. Allowed up to 4 dwelling units (fourplexes) on single family zoned parcels in the
central business district (Middle Housing TA)
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4, 2025
Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
OPPOSITION POSITION
Page 2
B. Other recent council actions prioritize residential use
1. Allowed redevelopment of commercial property to residential use without going
through the rezoning process (Multifamily residential development and adaptive
reuse)
2. Restricted data storage facilities from locating in areas that could be used for
housing
IV. There is a luxury vehicle storage development already within a half mile of this proposed
project. 2823 N 48th St. Hightail - “Arcadia's first luxury car condo project!”
Planning Commission Meeting
December 4, 2025
Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
OPPOSITION POSITION
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A – Housing Phoenix Plan Quarterly Report – July 2025-Septermber 2025, pg 1
From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 4:17 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Please oppose 12.6.25 agenda item 13: Z-91-25-6 Arcadia Auto Club PUD
Dear Planning Commissioners,
In recent years I have seen a great many zoning changes in residential areas from single family or low
density zones to high density multifamily. These zoning changes are approved even when they violate the
general plan and harm nearby neighbors. The public is told these changes are necessary because
Phoenix desperately needs more housing. Somehow, the general plan, which is updated regularly and
distributes land uses throughout the city in a rational way, is consistently out of date, even minutes after
it is adopted by a vote of the Phoenix citizenry. Ignoring the general plan overlooks the fact that many city
decisions about infrastructure and the allocation of services are based on the plan. Not following the
plan creates inefficiency, thus reducing the quality of services and increasing costs for all Phoenix
residents.
The property in this case is at a location where the current zoning is high density residential and that
zoning is what is in the general plan. The site is therefore assured sufficient infrastructure and services
for the anticipated residents. Yet instead of creating much needed housing for people, the proposed
zoning change would provide expensive parking for cars.
I don't understand.
Since Phoenix needs more housing, why not build it where it is planned for instead of putting it where it
doesn't belong? Does the general plan represent the city's vision for the future - an orderly layout of land
uses that are supported by infrastructure and services? Or is it like a model home-- just a design
suggestion that property owners need not follow?
I urge you to oppose Z-91-25-6 and support increased housing where it is planned and currently zoned.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jackie Rich
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
OCTOBER 15, NOVEMBER 5 AND DECEMBER 3, 2025) - Public Hearing and
Modification of Stipulation Request - Rezoning Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
- Northwest Corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue - District 6
Request to hold a public hearing on the Planning Hearing Officer rezoning application
for the following item and consider adoption of the Planning Commission
recommendation on September 4, 2025.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Existing Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings, LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings, LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh P.L.C.
Appellant: Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie, PLLC
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan and
rendering.
2. Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3. Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
4. Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) opted not to hear
this item.
PHO Action: On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the item under
advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the item out from
under advisement and recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and
an additional stipulation.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on September 4, 2025, and
recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional
stipulation, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, with a modification, by a
vote of 5-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on September 10, 2025.
Location
Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 5500 N. 24th Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Recommended Stipulations
PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
STIPULATIONS:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
4. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
2. 24 feet.
3.
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
4. SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
ATTACHMENT B
*REVISED
Staff Report: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
*September 12, 2025
APPLICATION #: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
LOCATION: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
EXISTING ZONING: C-O
ACREAGE: 1.16
REQUEST: 1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2) Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement
of construction.
4) Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
APPLICANT: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings, LLC
OWNER: Slavicek Holdings, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation, per the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendation.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. On
July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and
recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) opted not to hear this request.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site consists of 1.16 gross acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue and is zoned C-O (Commercial Office-Restricted
Commercial). The applicant requested the following modification requests (*Enclosure
B):
• Modification to Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan
and rendering.
• Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
• Deletion of Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
• Modification to Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
* The conceptual site plan depicted the proposed second floor addition (957 square
feet), existing bay unit at mezzanine, and 33 parking spaces (*Enclosure G). The
conceptual elevations depicted a 24-foot-tall building with proposed slate roof tile, stone
veneer framing to match the existing stone, a metal roof, and decorative wood pop-outs
(*Enclosure H).
The appellant argues the PHO states in his findings for Request 4 “I support the
rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case, during which the
original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on
the inside and they would not have two-story use of the structure." However, despite the
PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site
plan and renderings that provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are
appealing as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio (*Enclosure A).
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On March 10, 1980, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-323-79-6,
a request to rezone approximately 1.16 acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue from RE-35 (Single-Family Residence) to C-O (Commercial
Office-Restricted Commercial) (*Enclosure E). The proposed development was
intended for professional offices.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the case by a vote of 6-1 on, per
staff recommendation, on November 28, 1979 (*Enclosure K). The staff
recommendation indicated the following pros and cons of the case (*Enclosure L):
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
Pros:
• The parcel is on a major street.
• C-O zoning requires a site plan review.
Cons:
• The property was reasonably developed under the RE-35 zoning.
• Approval would lead to similar requests for lots on the west side of 24th Street
and worsen traffic congestion on this street.
• Does not meet the recommended density designation of the 0-2 residential units
per the 1985 Urban Forms Plan.
*
The City Council approved the rezoning to C-O with four stipulations to ensure the
property remain compatible with the surrounding land uses (*Enclosure E).
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
Ninety-seven letters of support were received, indicating the proposed
improvements will not cause any harm to the neighborhood, will not change its
character, and will provide architecture that will make the building look more iconic
(*Enclosure M).
Fifty-two letters of opposition were received, indicating concerns with the building
height, the applicant’s failure to obtain proper permits, the promotion of commercial
development in a residential neighborhood, the building not meeting building code
requirements, and privacy issues (*Enclosure N). A petition of opposition was
submitted, containing over 140 signatures, including some members who rescinded
their support for the case due to misinformation (*Enclosure O).
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units / acre
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
On-site: C-O Professional Office
North: RE-35 Vacant Residential Lot
East:
(Across 24th Street): PAD-6 Single-Family Residential
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
South
(Across Missouri Avenue): RE-35 Single-Family Residential
West: RE-35 Single-Family Residential
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan and
rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The modification
is to replace the existing language with a standard language stipulation regarding
general conformance to the site plan and elevations. The original stipulated site
plan depicts an office building situated at the southeast corner of the lot. The
proposed site plan depicts an 8,764 square foot office with a height of 26 feet-2
inches measured to the top of ridge. Note that maximum building height is
addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal is not changing the building footprint so
there is no real change to the site plan. The building height is also not being
modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The office
that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that include
architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several building additions
including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers. The west elevation shows
a new large dormer with four new windows and a variety of building materials
including stone veneer, decorative wood pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that
match the existing building. The windows appear to align with the proposed
interior addition of office space to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation
features two new turrets with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level.
The east elevation shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with
windows, one at mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north
elevation features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the proposed
site plan will allow the development to comply with current ordinance standards
for this use.
3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of construction
is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met and the zoning was
subsequently vested with adoption of an Official Supplementary Zoning Map.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is recommended to
be denied. The applicant requested a modification to remove the language
requiring the building to be built as one-story. The existing stipulation was
intended to ensure that a one-story building was built on the site. The original
stipulation was approved by City Council on March 10, 1980 and the minutes
reflect that the original plan for the development was revised from a two-story to
a one-story as a result of public concern related to the height of the building. In
addition, it was noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and they
would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was concerned
about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story with a height
limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the rationale in the original
decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain one-
story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story to the
building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will add an
additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was constructed at
some point since the original rezoning case approval. The applicant will be
required to submit construction documents to the Planning and Development
Department for approval and will therefore be required to comply with the
stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and International Building Code requirements,
which will be addressed during the plan review process.
5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the
Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application
requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to
record this form and deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
2. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
4. 24 feet.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Enclosures:
A- Appeal Documents (3 pages)
B- Applicant’s Narrative for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (17 pages)
C- Aerial Map
D- Zoning Map
E- Approval Letter for Z-323-79-6 (1 page)
F- PHO Summary for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 from May 21, 2025 (7 pages)
G- Conceptual Site Plan, date stamped April 2, 2025
H- Conceptual Elevations, date stamped April 2, 2025 (3 pages)
I- Stipulated Site Plan for Z-323-79-6
J- Stipulated Elevations for Z-323-79-6
K- Planning Commission Summary for Z-323-79-6 (3 pages)
L- Staff Recommendation from original staff report for Z-323-79-6 (2 pages)
M- Letters of support for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (102 pages)
N- Letters of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (62 pages)
O- Petition of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (46 pages)
ENCLOSURE A
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
*REVISED – 7/8/2025
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
PHO HEARING DATE: May 21, 2025 RECEIVED: July 7, 2025
(taken out from under
advisement on
July 7, 2025)
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: PLANNING *September 4, 2025
COMMISSION TENTATIVE DATE
*October 15, 2025
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS/EMAIL: PHONE:
Kurt Waldier
Gilbert Blilie PLLC
701 North 44th Street
480-429-3061
Phoenix, AZ 85008
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
RECEIPT NUMBER: N/A
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The PHO states in Findings #4 that “I support the rational in the original decision” in
regards to the original zoning case during which the original applicant at the City
Council hearing stated there would be “no mezzanine on the inside and they would
not have two-story use of the structure.” However, despite the PHO’s concurrence,
the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and
renderings that provides for a potential use of a ‘mezzanine level’ which we are
appealing, as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.
TAKEN BY: Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek PC Planner Asst – Camryn Thompson
Tricia Gomes PHO Secretary – Ruth Somoza
Racelle Escolar PC Secretary – Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Adam Stranieri GIS Team
Byron Easton Raquel Moreno – Posting
PHO Planner Asst – Teresa Garcia
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2025\PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - Kurt Waldier - Opposition (taken
out of advisement)\REVISED APPEAL\Internal Cover_REVISED.doc
*REVISED 7/8/2025
CITY OF PHOENIX
JUL O 7 2025
Planning & Development
Department
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
May 21, 2025- PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Taken out from under
The PLANNING HEARING OFFICER agenda for Advisement on July 7, 2025 is attached.
The City Council May Ratify the Recommendation of the Planning Hearing Officer
on August 27, 2025, Without Further Hearing Unless:
• A REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION is filed by
5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2025. (There is a $630.00 fee for hearings requested by the
applicant.)
Any member of the public may, within seven (7) days after the Planning Hearing
Officer's action, request a hearing by the Planning Commission on any application.
If you wish to request a hearing, fill out and sign the form below and return it to the
Planning and Development Department by 5:00 p.m. July 14, 2025.
APPEAL FORM
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
PH O-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION OF APPLICATION PROPERTY
Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie PLLC
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
� OPPOSITION □ APPLICANT
701 N 44th St kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
STREET ADDRESS: EMAIL:
Phoenix, AZ 85008 480-429-3061
CITY, STATE AN D ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO
BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE AS FOLLOWS:
Ma 21, 2025- PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Tak�n out from undeJ
APPEALED FROM advisement July 7, 2025 PHO HEARING TO * 9/4/2025 PC HEARING
DATE DATE
SIGNATURE: .... V...,---=-:t=
;:._j{A)
_...,J
..........�----' =----- DATE: 7/7/2025
REASON FOR APPEAL: The PHO states in Findings #4 that "I support the rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case
during which the original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on the inside and they would not have two-story use of
the structure." However. despite the PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and renderings that
provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are appealing. as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.
APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN PERSON AT THE 2ND FLOOR ZONING COUNTER, 200 W. WASHINGTON STREET, 602-262-7131, Option 6
PLANNER TAKING APPEAL: Gi�
Copies to: Case File PHO Planner - Teresa Garcia PHO Secretary- Ruth Somoza
ENCLOSURE B
April 2, 2025
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Byron Easton
Planning Hearing Officer
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 2 nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re: Modification of Stipulations - Case No. Z-323-79 NWC 24th Street and Missouri Avenue, Phoenix
Dear Mr. Easton:
This firm represents Brett Slavicek (the Owner ) regarding the proposal to renovate their law office building located
at 5500 N. 24th Street in Phoenix, which is also known as Maricopa County APN 164-46-017 This
Property is a transitional piece between single-family residential and the Camelback Road corridor, which has
intensive development and height. Please see attached Exhibit A for an aerial view of the Property. As explained
herein, the proposed development requires modification of stipulations, which were approved 46 years ago per
rezoning case Z-323-79, to accommodate the minor renovation to the existing office building.
BACKGROUND
The current office is a well-known charming building along 24th Street that resembles a stone home with
architecturally distinct facades, copper turret, ample landscaping, flowers, and no signage. The C-O zoning for the
site was approved in 1980, and the structure was built in 1982. The low impact of the current use on the site, the
considerate design of the building, and care of the Property has created an asset to the neighborhood.
The original rezoning approval and exhibits are attached at Exhibit B.
PROPOSAL
Due to the age of the existing building and need to modernize, the Owner would like to improve the interior of the
building and offer additional office space (approximately 1,000 square feet beyond what exists in the current
mezzanine). These offices will stay within the current building footprint and existing building height of 24 feet. In
addition to interior improvements, the building exterior will keep its charm, while updating aged elements such as the
roof, which will convert to slate and add more copper, and additional landscaping.
The proposed site plan, elevation, and rendering are attached at Exhibit C.
STIPULATION MODIFICATION
To allow the proposed renovation of the Property, the Owner requests the following modification of stipulations
approved for Z-323-79:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL to be in GENERAL conformance with the site plan and rendering. ELEVATIONS
DATED_________, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
April 2, 2025
Page 2
Rationale: This stipulation has been modified to reflect the updated site plan and elevations for the
minor office renovation.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
Rationale: The parking should be consistent with the current and more modern city of Phoenix
parking ratios, which are met with the proposal.
3. Construction commences within 24 months.
Rationale: This stipulation was accomplished with the original building and therefore is obsolete for
this request.
4. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL That it be one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed 24
feet.
Rationale: The intent of the original stipulation is still met with the height limitation of 24 feet, and
this modification would clarify and accommodate the proposed building renovation.
CONCLUSION
This minor office renovation will maintain the appeal and architectural integrity of the current building, while providing
more modern office building. The thoughtful proposal of the additional space positioned within the existing building
footprint and height continues the tradition of being a good neighbor.
Very truly yours,
WITHEY MORRIS BAUGH P.L.C.
By
Jason B. Morris
Attachments
ENCLOSURE C
PAD-6*
N 23RD PL
RE-35 E MARSHALL AVE
N 24TH ST
C-O*
E MISSOURI AVE
ALLEY
PAD-8*
N 24TH ST
mapservices@phoenix.gov
Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Planning & Development Department 0 40 80 160 Feet
´
ENCLOSURE D
E MARSHALL AVE
PAD-6*
N 23RD PL
C-O*
N 24TH ST
E MISSOURI AVE
RE-35
ALLEY N 24TH ST PAD-8*
N 25TH ST
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Planning & Development Department 0 40 80 160 Feet
´
ENCLOSURE E
Mod
Del
Del
Mod
ENCLOSURE F
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Byron Easton, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Teresa Garcia, Planner I, Assisting
May 21, 2025
ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO. 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Request: 1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2) Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding
commencement of construction.
4) Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building
height.
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, LLC
ACTIONS:
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took
the case under advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took
the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed, approval
with a modification and an additional stipulation.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Camelback East
Village Planning Committee opted not to hear this request.
DISCUSSION:
Jason Morris, representative of Withey Morris Baugh PLC, stated he is familiar
with the subject site and thought this would be a straightforward PHO request,
however, based on the amount of correspondence from the neighborhood, he
now thinks differently. He gave an overview of the site and his request to delete
Stipulations 1-4. He indicated the area was a target for urbanization in 1979 and
the City Council recognized the need for a professional office at this intersection.
He stated the current owner has owned the building since 2013 and has been a
good neighbor and has maintained the look of the building and landscaping.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 2
He noted the building and parking lot are often underutilized and surrounding
neighbors have used the parking lot when they have social gatherings. He stated
there are parking canopies along the north and west boundaries of the parking lot
and the building is pushed more towards the intersection of 24th Street and
Missouri Avenue, thus creating separation from the surrounding residential uses.
He explained that the project will primarily be an interior remodel with just a few
exterior changes; they do not intend to increase the building height, change the
use, or add a second floor. He stated there is an existing mezzanine that meets
the definition of a mezzanine in the Zoning Ordinance and in addition, a City of
Phoenix Municipal Judge who heard the original Neighborhood Services violation
case. He explained that the applicant is proposing the addition of two and a half
meeting rooms to an existing space that contains a law library and a small
kitchen and the total square footage they are requesting includes an interior
mezzanine space addition of approximately 1,000 square feet.
Byron Easton, Planning Hearing Officer, asked Mr. Morris to clarify why the
existing 1,411 square foot mezzanine space is being incorporated into the new
total floor space.
Mr. Morris clarified there are three levels to the building: a small basement, the
main level and the existing mezzanine space, which has been in place for some
time. He stated their request is just to add an additional 1,035 square feet; there
will be no new mezzanine or new floor space added.
Mr. Easton asked if the total floor space is the sum of the new floor space and
the existing floor space. Mr. Morris confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Morris gave an overview of their request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding
general conformance to the site plan and rendering. The request is meant to
address the exterior changes proposed on the site. The project scope originally
focused on updating the roof to a slate roof and that warranted a larger remodel
of the building, including a new turret structure featuring a copper roof. He
reiterated the height of the building will remain under the approved 24-foot height
limit that was stipulated in the original rezoning case. He noted the mezzanine
level on the west side of the building will include windows that will be screened
by 4 levels of foliage and will face southwest towards Missouri Avenue. In
addition, the windows will be 5 feet above floor level to provide interior light and
views of the sky but will not provide views into the neighbor’s property adjacent to
the west.
He discussed his request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios by
noting the current parking standards are being met and the parking lot has rarely
been at maximum capacity. The parking lot is only full occasionally on the
weekends, when the owner has allowed neighbors to use it for personal
gatherings. He stated the renovations will be uniform with the neighborhood
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 3
character and a second floor will not be added. He clarified that the mezzanine is
not a second story, and the property owner does not intend to exceed 24 feet in
height. Mr. Morris stated regardless of how much misinformation had been
circulated in the neighborhood, they have received 78 letters and 91 signatures
in support of the PHO request.
Paul Gilbert, representative of Beus Gilbert, stated he spoke on behalf of several
neighbors in opposition. He gave an overview of the site and the history of the
rezoning case. He indicated the original zoning stipulations were intended to
protect the neighborhood and make lasting commitments to the surrounding
neighbors. He stated the applicant has not been the good neighbor that he
claims to be.
He noted the site is “spot zoned” and is the only commercial zoned property
within a 2,000-foot radius. He noted the surrounding density is low density
residential, therefore the use is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of
Residential 1 to 2 du/acre. He stated the original case faced public opposition,
and Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application.
The City Council minutes indicated the building was revised from a two-story
building to a one-story building with no mezzanine and the windows were not to
exceed 8 feet in height. He stated the applicant intended to change the parking
ratio to 1 space for every 300 square feet instead of 1 space for every 250
square feet. He noted the owner proceeded with construction of the second
story without obtaining the proper permits, even though the building was deemed
unsafe. He stated the only permit obtained was a roof permit, but no permits
were pulled for the other renovations. He stated the owner’s claims about the
existing mezzanine were not consistent with the narrative nor Mr. Morris’
presentation. He states the project will support multistory office uses along 24th
Street and encourage other property owners to start construction without
acquiring the appropriate permits first. He stated the parking lot has been full on
multiple occasions, prompting people to park in the surrounding neighborhood,
including himself when he’s attended a seminar in the building.
Mr. Morris expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gilbert. He stated some
neighbors who switched their position on the case were given incorrect
information. He reiterated the applicant is only adding 1,035 square feet, the site
plan Mr. Gilbert presented was incorrect, and they intend to meet the parking
standards per the Planning and Development Department. He stated he
appreciates and respects Mr. Gilbert’s opinion, but the applicant never made a
commitment to preserving the current appearance of the building, he only
committed to keeping the building appearance consistent with the character of
the neighborhood. He reiterated that a mezzanine is not the same as a new floor
or story. The applicant is remaining compliant with the definition of a mezzanine
and are not increasing the building height. He said the PHO hearing is not a
litigation regarding the non-permitted construction, but a way for the owner to
demonstrate compliance with City requirements.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 4
Brett Slavicek, the current property owner, stated he wanted more space to
accommodate his son going to law school. He noted that he was not advised the
proper permits were not obtained nor of the window height restriction. He
reiterated the definition of a mezzanine may be considered a floor, but not a story
and intends on meeting the 24-foot building height. He stated he is undergoing
the PHO process to correct the violations.
Peter Drake, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he is familiar with this case and has lived in the neighborhood for many years. He
stated there is no justification to change the building since the neighborhood has
not been subject to any residential to commercial conversions since 1980.
Bill Shubert, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he’s an active member of the neighborhood and has experience with contracting
and development. He stated the original applicant of the rezoning case was able
to convince some neighbors to withdraw their opposition because of the original
stipulations that were granted. He reiterated that modifying the stipulations and
doing unpermitted construction is no way to treat the neighborhood.
Dennis Clifford, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, lives
across the street from the site and does not see an increase in height. He stated
the members of the public that spoke in opposition to the request are
exaggerating the impact of the requests and the building modifications will not
negatively affect the neighborhood. He stated the owner is trying to
accommodate the neighbors and indicated he attended the same seminar Mr.
Gilbert attended and that was the only time the parking lot was full.
Greg Nadeau, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, said
the property owner is doing a great job of keeping the property clean. He stated
the new square footage added will not affect the building height and will enhance
the appearance of the building.
Mr. Easton asked Mr. Morris if he knew when the mezzanine was built. Mr.
Morris stated he remembers being inside the building in the 80’s and thinks it
was part of the original rezoning case. He stated the City Council minutes Mr.
Gilbert referred to were referring to a proposed building that was intended to be
30’ in height. Mr. Easton asked if they provided a rendering that indicated the
window height. Mr. Morris stated they did not. He asked Mr. Morris to elaborate
on how a mezzanine is not considered a floor or story. Mr. Morris said the
definition is laid out in the Zoning Ordinance.
He asked Mr. Morris if a mezzanine is not a story, then why is the applicant
requesting to delete Stipulation 4. Mr. Morris stated he is asking to work in the
confines of the height requirement.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 5
Mr. Easton stated he received a large amount of correspondence from members
of the public during the review period. He received several more letters and
emails directly leading up to the hearing and did not have an opportunity to
review all the correspondence. In addition, information was presented during the
hearing that he would like to verify, including the definition of mezzanine, any
past rulings related to the mezzanine and the permit history tied to this parcel. He
stated that he would take the case under advisement in order to consider the
multitude of arguments in opposition and support of the request, both as
presented at the hearing and received via mail and/or email.
FINDINGS:
1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan
and rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The
modification is to replace the existing language with a standard language
stipulation regarding general conformance to the site plan and elevations.
The original stipulated site plan depicts an office building situated at the
southeast corner of the lot. The proposed site plan depicts an 8,764
square foot office with a height of 26’-2” measured to the top of ridge. Note
that maximum building height is addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal
is not changing the building footprint so there is no real change to the site
plan. The building height is also not being modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The
office that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that
include architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several
building additions including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers.
The west elevation shows a new large dormer with four new windows and
a variety of building materials including stone veneer, decorative wood
pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that match the existing building. The
windows appear to align with the proposed interior addition of office space
to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation features two new turrets
with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level. The east elevation
shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with windows, one at
mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north elevation
features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the
proposed site plan will allow the development to comply with current
ordinance standards for this use.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 6
3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of
construction is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met
and the zoning was subsequently vested with adoption of an Official
Supplementary Zoning Map.
4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is
recommended to be denied. The applicant requested a modification to
remove the language requiring the building to be built as one-story. The
existing stipulation was intended to ensure that a one-story building was
built on the site. The original stipulation was approved by City Council on
March 10, 1980 and the minutes reflect that the original plan for the
development was revised from a two-story to a one-story as a result of
public concern related to the height of the building. In addition, it was
noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and
they would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was
concerned about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story
with a height limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the
rationale in the original decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain
one-story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story
to the building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will
add an additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was
constructed at some point since the original rezoning case approval. The
applicant will be required to submit construction documents to the
Planning and Development Department for approval and will therefore be
required to comply with the stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and
International Building Code requirements, which will be addressed during
the plan review process.
5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to
the Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an
application requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to
require the applicant to record this form and deliver it to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025 AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 7
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
2. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
4. 24 feet.
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Saneeya Mir
at saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov or (602) 686-6461 or TTY: 7-1-1.
ENCLOSURE G
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE H
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE I
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Stipulated Site Plan Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE J
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Stipulated Exhibit Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE K
ENCLOSURE L
ENCLOSURE M
For support correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html
ENCLOSURE N
For opposition correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html
ATTACHMENT C
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
September 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Existing Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Proposal: 1) Modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site
plan and rendering.
2) Delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
4) Modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Appellant: Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie, PLLC
ACTIONS:
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: N/A
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation (PHO): The Planning Hearing Officer heard the
request on May 21, 2025 and took the case under advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning
Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed,
approval with a modification and an additional stipulation
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial as filed, approval with a modification and an
additional stipulation, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, with a modification.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to deny PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6 as
filed, and approve with a modification and an additional stipulation, per the Planning Hearing
Officer recommendation with a modification to keep Stipulation No. 2.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: James
Vote: 5-1 (Jaramillo)
Absent: Odegard-Begay, Matthews
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan and
rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The modification is to
replace the existing language with a standard language stipulation regarding general
conformance to the site plan and elevations. The original stipulated site plan depicts an
office building situated at the southeast corner of the lot. The proposed site plan depicts
an 8,764 square foot office with a height of 26’-2” measured to the top of ridge. Note
that maximum building height is addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal is not
changing the building footprint so there is no real change to the site plan. The building
height is also not being modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that resembles a
single-family residential home. The building features a large, pronounced front door,
stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The office that was built onsite was
consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that include
architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several building additions
including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers. The west elevation shows a new
large dormer with four new windows and a variety of building materials including stone
veneer, decorative wood pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that match the existing
building. The windows appear to align with the proposed interior addition of office space
to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation features two new turrets with windows
that are also shown on mezzanine level. The east elevation shows several new roof
vents and two new pop-outs with windows, one at mezzanine level and one on the
ground floor. The north elevation features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2. The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required parking was
added back to ensure the property abides by the originally required parking ratio and
reduce the possibility of parking in the right-of-way.
3. The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of construction is
recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met and the zoning was
subsequently vested with adoption of an Official Supplementary Zoning Map.
4. The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is recommended to be
denied. The applicant requested a modification to remove the language requiring the
building to be built as one-story. The existing stipulation was intended to ensure that a
one-story building was built on the site. The original stipulation was approved by City
Council on March 10, 1980 and the minutes reflect that the original plan for the
development was revised from a two-story to a one-story as a result of public concern
related to the height of the building. In addition, it was noted by the original applicant at
the City Council hearing that the maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine
on the inside and they would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council
was concerned about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story with a
height limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the rationale in the original
decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain one-story after
construction and they will not be adding an additional story to the building. The
applicant noted that the proposed improvements will add an additional 1,035 square
feet to an existing mezzanine that was constructed at some point since the original
rezoning case approval. The applicant will be required to submit construction
documents to the Planning and Development Department for approval and will therefore
be required to comply with the stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and International
Building Code requirements, which will be addressed during the plan review process.
5. The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the Planning
Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application requirement. An
additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to record this form and
deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
Stipulations:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
2. THE PARKING RATIO TO BE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 250 SQUARE FEET.
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
4. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
2. 24 feet.
3.
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
4. SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ PHO-1-25—Z-323- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION 79-6 opposition X applicant
Northwest corner of
24th Street and
Missouri Avenue
APPEALED FROM: PC 9/4/2025
701 North 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 10/15/2025 Kurt Waldier
HEARING Gilbert Blilie PLLC
480-429-3061
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Second story windows should not be permitted on the property that is stipulated to be
a one-story building.
RECEIVED BY: 9/10/2025 RECEIVED ON: Andrew Birkelbach
Joshua Bednarek Dalia Adams
Tricia Gomes Camryn Thompson/Teresa Garcia
Racelle Escolar Micah Alexander
Sarah Stockham GIS
Adam Stranieri Byron Easton (for PHO appeals only)
Heather Klotz Village Planner - Robert Kuhfuss
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
REVISED 10/16/2024 vcm
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: November 4, 2025
Deputy City Manager
From: Joshua BednarekPlanning and Development Director
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 50 ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2025, PUBLIC HEARING
AND MODIFICATION OF STIPULATION REQUEST - REZONING
APPLICATION PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - NORTHWEST CORNER OF 24TH
STREET AND MISSOURI AVENUE
This memo serves to request the continuance of the agenda item scheduled for the
November 5, 2025, Formal Meeting, concerning the request to modify stipulations of
entitlement for a 1.16-acre site located at the northwest corner of 24th Street and
Missouri Avenue.
The applicant and appellant have begun developing modifications and additions to
the stipulations for the request. Staff recommends continuing this item to the
December 3, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to allow additional time for the
applicant and appellant to finalize the stipulations.
Approved: dU·?tfl
Alan Stephens:
Deputy City Manager
OCTOBER 15, NOVEMBER 5 AND DECEMBER 3, 2025) - Public Hearing and
Modification of Stipulation Request - Rezoning Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
- Northwest Corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue - District 6
Request to hold a public hearing on the Planning Hearing Officer rezoning application
for the following item and consider adoption of the Planning Commission
recommendation on September 4, 2025.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Existing Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings, LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings, LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh P.L.C.
Appellant: Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie, PLLC
Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan and
rendering.
2. Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3. Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
4. Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) opted not to hear
this item.
PHO Action: On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the item under
advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the item out from
under advisement and recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and
an additional stipulation.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on September 4, 2025, and
recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional
stipulation, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, with a modification, by a
vote of 5-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on September 10, 2025.
Location
Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 5500 N. 24th Street
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Recommended Stipulations
PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
STIPULATIONS:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
4. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
2. 24 feet.
3.
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
4. SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
ATTACHMENT B
*REVISED
Staff Report: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
*September 12, 2025
APPLICATION #: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
LOCATION: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
EXISTING ZONING: C-O
ACREAGE: 1.16
REQUEST: 1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2) Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement
of construction.
4) Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
APPLICANT: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings, LLC
OWNER: Slavicek Holdings, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation, per the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendation.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. On
July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and
recommended denial as filed, approval with a modification and an additional stipulation.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC) opted not to hear this request.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site consists of 1.16 gross acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue and is zoned C-O (Commercial Office-Restricted
Commercial). The applicant requested the following modification requests (*Enclosure
B):
• Modification to Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan
and rendering.
• Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
• Deletion of Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
• Modification to Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
* The conceptual site plan depicted the proposed second floor addition (957 square
feet), existing bay unit at mezzanine, and 33 parking spaces (*Enclosure G). The
conceptual elevations depicted a 24-foot-tall building with proposed slate roof tile, stone
veneer framing to match the existing stone, a metal roof, and decorative wood pop-outs
(*Enclosure H).
The appellant argues the PHO states in his findings for Request 4 “I support the
rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case, during which the
original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on
the inside and they would not have two-story use of the structure." However, despite the
PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site
plan and renderings that provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are
appealing as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio (*Enclosure A).
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On March 10, 1980, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-323-79-6,
a request to rezone approximately 1.16 acres located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Missouri Avenue from RE-35 (Single-Family Residence) to C-O (Commercial
Office-Restricted Commercial) (*Enclosure E). The proposed development was
intended for professional offices.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the case by a vote of 6-1 on, per
staff recommendation, on November 28, 1979 (*Enclosure K). The staff
recommendation indicated the following pros and cons of the case (*Enclosure L):
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
Pros:
• The parcel is on a major street.
• C-O zoning requires a site plan review.
Cons:
• The property was reasonably developed under the RE-35 zoning.
• Approval would lead to similar requests for lots on the west side of 24th Street
and worsen traffic congestion on this street.
• Does not meet the recommended density designation of the 0-2 residential units
per the 1985 Urban Forms Plan.
*
The City Council approved the rezoning to C-O with four stipulations to ensure the
property remain compatible with the surrounding land uses (*Enclosure E).
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
Ninety-seven letters of support were received, indicating the proposed
improvements will not cause any harm to the neighborhood, will not change its
character, and will provide architecture that will make the building look more iconic
(*Enclosure M).
Fifty-two letters of opposition were received, indicating concerns with the building
height, the applicant’s failure to obtain proper permits, the promotion of commercial
development in a residential neighborhood, the building not meeting building code
requirements, and privacy issues (*Enclosure N). A petition of opposition was
submitted, containing over 140 signatures, including some members who rescinded
their support for the case due to misinformation (*Enclosure O).
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units / acre
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
On-site: C-O Professional Office
North: RE-35 Vacant Residential Lot
East:
(Across 24th Street): PAD-6 Single-Family Residential
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
South
(Across Missouri Avenue): RE-35 Single-Family Residential
West: RE-35 Single-Family Residential
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan and
rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The modification
is to replace the existing language with a standard language stipulation regarding
general conformance to the site plan and elevations. The original stipulated site
plan depicts an office building situated at the southeast corner of the lot. The
proposed site plan depicts an 8,764 square foot office with a height of 26 feet-2
inches measured to the top of ridge. Note that maximum building height is
addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal is not changing the building footprint so
there is no real change to the site plan. The building height is also not being
modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The office
that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that include
architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several building additions
including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers. The west elevation shows
a new large dormer with four new windows and a variety of building materials
including stone veneer, decorative wood pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that
match the existing building. The windows appear to align with the proposed
interior addition of office space to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation
features two new turrets with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level.
The east elevation shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with
windows, one at mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north
elevation features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the proposed
site plan will allow the development to comply with current ordinance standards
for this use.
3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of construction
is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met and the zoning was
subsequently vested with adoption of an Official Supplementary Zoning Map.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is recommended to
be denied. The applicant requested a modification to remove the language
requiring the building to be built as one-story. The existing stipulation was
intended to ensure that a one-story building was built on the site. The original
stipulation was approved by City Council on March 10, 1980 and the minutes
reflect that the original plan for the development was revised from a two-story to
a one-story as a result of public concern related to the height of the building. In
addition, it was noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and they
would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was concerned
about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story with a height
limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the rationale in the original
decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain one-
story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story to the
building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will add an
additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was constructed at
some point since the original rezoning case approval. The applicant will be
required to submit construction documents to the Planning and Development
Department for approval and will therefore be required to comply with the
stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and International Building Code requirements,
which will be addressed during the plan review process.
5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the
Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application
requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to
record this form and deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
2. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
4. 24 feet.
Staff Report PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
September 4, 2025 Planning Commission
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Enclosures:
A- Appeal Documents (3 pages)
B- Applicant’s Narrative for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (17 pages)
C- Aerial Map
D- Zoning Map
E- Approval Letter for Z-323-79-6 (1 page)
F- PHO Summary for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 from May 21, 2025 (7 pages)
G- Conceptual Site Plan, date stamped April 2, 2025
H- Conceptual Elevations, date stamped April 2, 2025 (3 pages)
I- Stipulated Site Plan for Z-323-79-6
J- Stipulated Elevations for Z-323-79-6
K- Planning Commission Summary for Z-323-79-6 (3 pages)
L- Staff Recommendation from original staff report for Z-323-79-6 (2 pages)
M- Letters of support for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (102 pages)
N- Letters of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (62 pages)
O- Petition of opposition for PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 (46 pages)
ENCLOSURE A
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
*REVISED – 7/8/2025
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
PHO HEARING DATE: May 21, 2025 RECEIVED: July 7, 2025
(taken out from under
advisement on
July 7, 2025)
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: PLANNING *September 4, 2025
COMMISSION TENTATIVE DATE
*October 15, 2025
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS/EMAIL: PHONE:
Kurt Waldier
Gilbert Blilie PLLC
701 North 44th Street
480-429-3061
Phoenix, AZ 85008
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
RECEIPT NUMBER: N/A
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The PHO states in Findings #4 that “I support the rational in the original decision” in
regards to the original zoning case during which the original applicant at the City
Council hearing stated there would be “no mezzanine on the inside and they would
not have two-story use of the structure.” However, despite the PHO’s concurrence,
the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and
renderings that provides for a potential use of a ‘mezzanine level’ which we are
appealing, as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.
TAKEN BY: Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek PC Planner Asst – Camryn Thompson
Tricia Gomes PHO Secretary – Ruth Somoza
Racelle Escolar PC Secretary – Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Adam Stranieri GIS Team
Byron Easton Raquel Moreno – Posting
PHO Planner Asst – Teresa Garcia
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2025\PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - Kurt Waldier - Opposition (taken
out of advisement)\REVISED APPEAL\Internal Cover_REVISED.doc
*REVISED 7/8/2025
CITY OF PHOENIX
JUL O 7 2025
Planning & Development
Department
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
May 21, 2025- PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Taken out from under
The PLANNING HEARING OFFICER agenda for Advisement on July 7, 2025 is attached.
The City Council May Ratify the Recommendation of the Planning Hearing Officer
on August 27, 2025, Without Further Hearing Unless:
• A REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION is filed by
5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2025. (There is a $630.00 fee for hearings requested by the
applicant.)
Any member of the public may, within seven (7) days after the Planning Hearing
Officer's action, request a hearing by the Planning Commission on any application.
If you wish to request a hearing, fill out and sign the form below and return it to the
Planning and Development Department by 5:00 p.m. July 14, 2025.
APPEAL FORM
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
PH O-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION OF APPLICATION PROPERTY
Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie PLLC
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
� OPPOSITION □ APPLICANT
701 N 44th St kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
STREET ADDRESS: EMAIL:
Phoenix, AZ 85008 480-429-3061
CITY, STATE AN D ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO
BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE AS FOLLOWS:
Ma 21, 2025- PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Tak�n out from undeJ
APPEALED FROM advisement July 7, 2025 PHO HEARING TO * 9/4/2025 PC HEARING
DATE DATE
SIGNATURE: .... V...,---=-:t=
;:._j{A)
_...,J
..........�----' =----- DATE: 7/7/2025
REASON FOR APPEAL: The PHO states in Findings #4 that "I support the rationale in the original decision" in regards to the original zoning case
during which the original applicant at the City Council hearing stated there would be "no mezzanine on the inside and they would not have two-story use of
the structure." However. despite the PHO's concurrence, the PHO still recommended approval of modifying the original site plan and renderings that
provides for a potential use of a 'mezzanine level' which we are appealing. as well as allowing an increase in the parking ratio.
APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN PERSON AT THE 2ND FLOOR ZONING COUNTER, 200 W. WASHINGTON STREET, 602-262-7131, Option 6
PLANNER TAKING APPEAL: Gi�
Copies to: Case File PHO Planner - Teresa Garcia PHO Secretary- Ruth Somoza
ENCLOSURE B
April 2, 2025
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Byron Easton
Planning Hearing Officer
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 2 nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re: Modification of Stipulations - Case No. Z-323-79 NWC 24th Street and Missouri Avenue, Phoenix
Dear Mr. Easton:
This firm represents Brett Slavicek (the Owner ) regarding the proposal to renovate their law office building located
at 5500 N. 24th Street in Phoenix, which is also known as Maricopa County APN 164-46-017 This
Property is a transitional piece between single-family residential and the Camelback Road corridor, which has
intensive development and height. Please see attached Exhibit A for an aerial view of the Property. As explained
herein, the proposed development requires modification of stipulations, which were approved 46 years ago per
rezoning case Z-323-79, to accommodate the minor renovation to the existing office building.
BACKGROUND
The current office is a well-known charming building along 24th Street that resembles a stone home with
architecturally distinct facades, copper turret, ample landscaping, flowers, and no signage. The C-O zoning for the
site was approved in 1980, and the structure was built in 1982. The low impact of the current use on the site, the
considerate design of the building, and care of the Property has created an asset to the neighborhood.
The original rezoning approval and exhibits are attached at Exhibit B.
PROPOSAL
Due to the age of the existing building and need to modernize, the Owner would like to improve the interior of the
building and offer additional office space (approximately 1,000 square feet beyond what exists in the current
mezzanine). These offices will stay within the current building footprint and existing building height of 24 feet. In
addition to interior improvements, the building exterior will keep its charm, while updating aged elements such as the
roof, which will convert to slate and add more copper, and additional landscaping.
The proposed site plan, elevation, and rendering are attached at Exhibit C.
STIPULATION MODIFICATION
To allow the proposed renovation of the Property, the Owner requests the following modification of stipulations
approved for Z-323-79:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL to be in GENERAL conformance with the site plan and rendering. ELEVATIONS
DATED_________, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
April 2, 2025
Page 2
Rationale: This stipulation has been modified to reflect the updated site plan and elevations for the
minor office renovation.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
Rationale: The parking should be consistent with the current and more modern city of Phoenix
parking ratios, which are met with the proposal.
3. Construction commences within 24 months.
Rationale: This stipulation was accomplished with the original building and therefore is obsolete for
this request.
4. THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL That it be one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed 24
feet.
Rationale: The intent of the original stipulation is still met with the height limitation of 24 feet, and
this modification would clarify and accommodate the proposed building renovation.
CONCLUSION
This minor office renovation will maintain the appeal and architectural integrity of the current building, while providing
more modern office building. The thoughtful proposal of the additional space positioned within the existing building
footprint and height continues the tradition of being a good neighbor.
Very truly yours,
WITHEY MORRIS BAUGH P.L.C.
By
Jason B. Morris
Attachments
ENCLOSURE C
PAD-6*
N 23RD PL
RE-35 E MARSHALL AVE
N 24TH ST
C-O*
E MISSOURI AVE
ALLEY
PAD-8*
N 24TH ST
mapservices@phoenix.gov
Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Planning & Development Department 0 40 80 160 Feet
´
ENCLOSURE D
E MARSHALL AVE
PAD-6*
N 23RD PL
C-O*
N 24TH ST
E MISSOURI AVE
RE-35
ALLEY N 24TH ST PAD-8*
N 25TH ST
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Property Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Planning & Development Department 0 40 80 160 Feet
´
ENCLOSURE E
Mod
Del
Del
Mod
ENCLOSURE F
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Byron Easton, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Teresa Garcia, Planner I, Assisting
May 21, 2025
ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO. 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Request: 1) Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan and rendering.
2) Request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding
commencement of construction.
4) Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building
height.
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, LLC
ACTIONS:
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took
the case under advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took
the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed, approval
with a modification and an additional stipulation.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Camelback East
Village Planning Committee opted not to hear this request.
DISCUSSION:
Jason Morris, representative of Withey Morris Baugh PLC, stated he is familiar
with the subject site and thought this would be a straightforward PHO request,
however, based on the amount of correspondence from the neighborhood, he
now thinks differently. He gave an overview of the site and his request to delete
Stipulations 1-4. He indicated the area was a target for urbanization in 1979 and
the City Council recognized the need for a professional office at this intersection.
He stated the current owner has owned the building since 2013 and has been a
good neighbor and has maintained the look of the building and landscaping.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 2
He noted the building and parking lot are often underutilized and surrounding
neighbors have used the parking lot when they have social gatherings. He stated
there are parking canopies along the north and west boundaries of the parking lot
and the building is pushed more towards the intersection of 24th Street and
Missouri Avenue, thus creating separation from the surrounding residential uses.
He explained that the project will primarily be an interior remodel with just a few
exterior changes; they do not intend to increase the building height, change the
use, or add a second floor. He stated there is an existing mezzanine that meets
the definition of a mezzanine in the Zoning Ordinance and in addition, a City of
Phoenix Municipal Judge who heard the original Neighborhood Services violation
case. He explained that the applicant is proposing the addition of two and a half
meeting rooms to an existing space that contains a law library and a small
kitchen and the total square footage they are requesting includes an interior
mezzanine space addition of approximately 1,000 square feet.
Byron Easton, Planning Hearing Officer, asked Mr. Morris to clarify why the
existing 1,411 square foot mezzanine space is being incorporated into the new
total floor space.
Mr. Morris clarified there are three levels to the building: a small basement, the
main level and the existing mezzanine space, which has been in place for some
time. He stated their request is just to add an additional 1,035 square feet; there
will be no new mezzanine or new floor space added.
Mr. Easton asked if the total floor space is the sum of the new floor space and
the existing floor space. Mr. Morris confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Morris gave an overview of their request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding
general conformance to the site plan and rendering. The request is meant to
address the exterior changes proposed on the site. The project scope originally
focused on updating the roof to a slate roof and that warranted a larger remodel
of the building, including a new turret structure featuring a copper roof. He
reiterated the height of the building will remain under the approved 24-foot height
limit that was stipulated in the original rezoning case. He noted the mezzanine
level on the west side of the building will include windows that will be screened
by 4 levels of foliage and will face southwest towards Missouri Avenue. In
addition, the windows will be 5 feet above floor level to provide interior light and
views of the sky but will not provide views into the neighbor’s property adjacent to
the west.
He discussed his request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios by
noting the current parking standards are being met and the parking lot has rarely
been at maximum capacity. The parking lot is only full occasionally on the
weekends, when the owner has allowed neighbors to use it for personal
gatherings. He stated the renovations will be uniform with the neighborhood
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 3
character and a second floor will not be added. He clarified that the mezzanine is
not a second story, and the property owner does not intend to exceed 24 feet in
height. Mr. Morris stated regardless of how much misinformation had been
circulated in the neighborhood, they have received 78 letters and 91 signatures
in support of the PHO request.
Paul Gilbert, representative of Beus Gilbert, stated he spoke on behalf of several
neighbors in opposition. He gave an overview of the site and the history of the
rezoning case. He indicated the original zoning stipulations were intended to
protect the neighborhood and make lasting commitments to the surrounding
neighbors. He stated the applicant has not been the good neighbor that he
claims to be.
He noted the site is “spot zoned” and is the only commercial zoned property
within a 2,000-foot radius. He noted the surrounding density is low density
residential, therefore the use is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of
Residential 1 to 2 du/acre. He stated the original case faced public opposition,
and Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application.
The City Council minutes indicated the building was revised from a two-story
building to a one-story building with no mezzanine and the windows were not to
exceed 8 feet in height. He stated the applicant intended to change the parking
ratio to 1 space for every 300 square feet instead of 1 space for every 250
square feet. He noted the owner proceeded with construction of the second
story without obtaining the proper permits, even though the building was deemed
unsafe. He stated the only permit obtained was a roof permit, but no permits
were pulled for the other renovations. He stated the owner’s claims about the
existing mezzanine were not consistent with the narrative nor Mr. Morris’
presentation. He states the project will support multistory office uses along 24th
Street and encourage other property owners to start construction without
acquiring the appropriate permits first. He stated the parking lot has been full on
multiple occasions, prompting people to park in the surrounding neighborhood,
including himself when he’s attended a seminar in the building.
Mr. Morris expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gilbert. He stated some
neighbors who switched their position on the case were given incorrect
information. He reiterated the applicant is only adding 1,035 square feet, the site
plan Mr. Gilbert presented was incorrect, and they intend to meet the parking
standards per the Planning and Development Department. He stated he
appreciates and respects Mr. Gilbert’s opinion, but the applicant never made a
commitment to preserving the current appearance of the building, he only
committed to keeping the building appearance consistent with the character of
the neighborhood. He reiterated that a mezzanine is not the same as a new floor
or story. The applicant is remaining compliant with the definition of a mezzanine
and are not increasing the building height. He said the PHO hearing is not a
litigation regarding the non-permitted construction, but a way for the owner to
demonstrate compliance with City requirements.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 4
Brett Slavicek, the current property owner, stated he wanted more space to
accommodate his son going to law school. He noted that he was not advised the
proper permits were not obtained nor of the window height restriction. He
reiterated the definition of a mezzanine may be considered a floor, but not a story
and intends on meeting the 24-foot building height. He stated he is undergoing
the PHO process to correct the violations.
Peter Drake, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he is familiar with this case and has lived in the neighborhood for many years. He
stated there is no justification to change the building since the neighborhood has
not been subject to any residential to commercial conversions since 1980.
Bill Shubert, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
he’s an active member of the neighborhood and has experience with contracting
and development. He stated the original applicant of the rezoning case was able
to convince some neighbors to withdraw their opposition because of the original
stipulations that were granted. He reiterated that modifying the stipulations and
doing unpermitted construction is no way to treat the neighborhood.
Dennis Clifford, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, lives
across the street from the site and does not see an increase in height. He stated
the members of the public that spoke in opposition to the request are
exaggerating the impact of the requests and the building modifications will not
negatively affect the neighborhood. He stated the owner is trying to
accommodate the neighbors and indicated he attended the same seminar Mr.
Gilbert attended and that was the only time the parking lot was full.
Greg Nadeau, a member of the public speaking in support of the request, said
the property owner is doing a great job of keeping the property clean. He stated
the new square footage added will not affect the building height and will enhance
the appearance of the building.
Mr. Easton asked Mr. Morris if he knew when the mezzanine was built. Mr.
Morris stated he remembers being inside the building in the 80’s and thinks it
was part of the original rezoning case. He stated the City Council minutes Mr.
Gilbert referred to were referring to a proposed building that was intended to be
30’ in height. Mr. Easton asked if they provided a rendering that indicated the
window height. Mr. Morris stated they did not. He asked Mr. Morris to elaborate
on how a mezzanine is not considered a floor or story. Mr. Morris said the
definition is laid out in the Zoning Ordinance.
He asked Mr. Morris if a mezzanine is not a story, then why is the applicant
requesting to delete Stipulation 4. Mr. Morris stated he is asking to work in the
confines of the height requirement.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 5
Mr. Easton stated he received a large amount of correspondence from members
of the public during the review period. He received several more letters and
emails directly leading up to the hearing and did not have an opportunity to
review all the correspondence. In addition, information was presented during the
hearing that he would like to verify, including the definition of mezzanine, any
past rulings related to the mezzanine and the permit history tied to this parcel. He
stated that he would take the case under advisement in order to consider the
multitude of arguments in opposition and support of the request, both as
presented at the hearing and received via mail and/or email.
FINDINGS:
1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan
and rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The
modification is to replace the existing language with a standard language
stipulation regarding general conformance to the site plan and elevations.
The original stipulated site plan depicts an office building situated at the
southeast corner of the lot. The proposed site plan depicts an 8,764
square foot office with a height of 26’-2” measured to the top of ridge. Note
that maximum building height is addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal
is not changing the building footprint so there is no real change to the site
plan. The building height is also not being modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that
resembles a single-family residential home. The building features a large,
pronounced front door, stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The
office that was built onsite was consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that
include architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several
building additions including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers.
The west elevation shows a new large dormer with four new windows and
a variety of building materials including stone veneer, decorative wood
pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that match the existing building. The
windows appear to align with the proposed interior addition of office space
to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation features two new turrets
with windows that are also shown on mezzanine level. The east elevation
shows several new roof vents and two new pop-outs with windows, one at
mezzanine level and one on the ground floor. The north elevation
features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required
parking is recommended to be approved. The parking provided on the
proposed site plan will allow the development to comply with current
ordinance standards for this use.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 6
3) The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of
construction is recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met
and the zoning was subsequently vested with adoption of an Official
Supplementary Zoning Map.
4) The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is
recommended to be denied. The applicant requested a modification to
remove the language requiring the building to be built as one-story. The
existing stipulation was intended to ensure that a one-story building was
built on the site. The original stipulation was approved by City Council on
March 10, 1980 and the minutes reflect that the original plan for the
development was revised from a two-story to a one-story as a result of
public concern related to the height of the building. In addition, it was
noted by the original applicant at the City Council hearing that the
maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine on the inside and
they would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council was
concerned about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story
with a height limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the
rationale in the original decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain
one-story after construction and they will not be adding an additional story
to the building. The applicant noted that the proposed improvements will
add an additional 1,035 square feet to an existing mezzanine that was
constructed at some point since the original rezoning case approval. The
applicant will be required to submit construction documents to the
Planning and Development Department for approval and will therefore be
required to comply with the stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and
International Building Code requirements, which will be addressed during
the plan review process.
5) The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to
the Planning Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an
application requirement. An additional stipulation is recommended to
require the applicant to record this form and deliver it to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025 AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of May 21, 2025
Application PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6
Page 7
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
2. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
4. 24 feet.
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Saneeya Mir
at saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov or (602) 686-6461 or TTY: 7-1-1.
ENCLOSURE G
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE H
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE I
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Stipulated Site Plan Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE J
PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 Stipulated Exhibit Hearing Date: May 21, 2025
ENCLOSURE K
ENCLOSURE L
ENCLOSURE M
For support correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html
ENCLOSURE N
For opposition correspondence, please see the link on the staff report website
(PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6):
https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html
ATTACHMENT C
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
September 4, 2025
ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6
Location: Northwest corner of 24th Street and Missouri Avenue
Existing Zoning: C-O
Acreage: 1.16
Proposal: 1) Modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site
plan and rendering.
2) Delete Stipulation 2 regarding parking ratios.
3) Delete Stipulation 3 regarding commencement of construction.
4) Modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height.
Applicant: Brett Slavicek, Slavicek Holdings LLC
Owner: Slavicek Holdings LLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC
Appellant: Kurt Waldier, Gilbert Blilie, PLLC
ACTIONS:
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: N/A
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation (PHO): The Planning Hearing Officer heard the
request on May 21, 2025 and took the case under advisement. On July 7, 2025, the Planning
Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed,
approval with a modification and an additional stipulation
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial as filed, approval with a modification and an
additional stipulation, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation, with a modification.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to deny PHO-1-25—Z-323-79-6 as
filed, and approve with a modification and an additional stipulation, per the Planning Hearing
Officer recommendation with a modification to keep Stipulation No. 2.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: James
Vote: 5-1 (Jaramillo)
Absent: Odegard-Begay, Matthews
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding conformance to the site plan and
rendering is recommended to be approved with a modification. The modification is to
replace the existing language with a standard language stipulation regarding general
conformance to the site plan and elevations. The original stipulated site plan depicts an
office building situated at the southeast corner of the lot. The proposed site plan depicts
an 8,764 square foot office with a height of 26’-2” measured to the top of ridge. Note
that maximum building height is addressed in Stipulation 4. The proposal is not
changing the building footprint so there is no real change to the site plan. The building
height is also not being modified.
The stipulated rendering shows a well landscaped, commercial office that resembles a
single-family residential home. The building features a large, pronounced front door,
stone façade, a turret and undulating roof line. The office that was built onsite was
consistent with the stipulated rendering.
The proposed elevations reflect the existing office with modifications that include
architecturally distinct facades, additional turrets, and several building additions
including roof vents, pop-out windows and/or dormers. The west elevation shows a new
large dormer with four new windows and a variety of building materials including stone
veneer, decorative wood pop-outs, stucco and metal finishes that match the existing
building. The windows appear to align with the proposed interior addition of office space
to the existing mezzanine. The south elevation features two new turrets with windows
that are also shown on mezzanine level. The east elevation shows several new roof
vents and two new pop-outs with windows, one at mezzanine level and one on the
ground floor. The north elevation features several proposed dormers and roof vents.
2. The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding the parking ratio for required parking was
added back to ensure the property abides by the originally required parking ratio and
reduce the possibility of parking in the right-of-way.
3. The request to delete Stipulation 3 regarding the commencement of construction is
recommended to be approved. This stipulation was met and the zoning was
subsequently vested with adoption of an Official Supplementary Zoning Map.
4. The request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding building height is recommended to be
denied. The applicant requested a modification to remove the language requiring the
building to be built as one-story. The existing stipulation was intended to ensure that a
one-story building was built on the site. The original stipulation was approved by City
Council on March 10, 1980 and the minutes reflect that the original plan for the
development was revised from a two-story to a one-story as a result of public concern
related to the height of the building. In addition, it was noted by the original applicant at
the City Council hearing that the maximum height would be 30 feet, with no mezzanine
on the inside and they would not have two-story use of the structure. The City Council
was concerned about the height and amended the motion to indicate one-story with a
height limitation of 24 feet rather than 30 feet. I support the rationale in the original
decision.
At the PHO hearing, the applicant acknowledged the building will remain one-story after
construction and they will not be adding an additional story to the building. The
applicant noted that the proposed improvements will add an additional 1,035 square
feet to an existing mezzanine that was constructed at some point since the original
rezoning case approval. The applicant will be required to submit construction
documents to the Planning and Development Department for approval and will therefore
be required to comply with the stipulation, the Zoning Ordinance, and International
Building Code requirements, which will be addressed during the plan review process.
5. The applicant did not submit a Proposition 207 waiver of claims prior to the Planning
Hearing Officer hearing. Submittal of this form is an application requirement. An
additional stipulation is recommended to require the applicant to record this form and
deliver it to the City to be included in the rezoning application file for record.
Stipulations:
1. THE Ddevelopment SHALL be to in GENERAL conformance with the site
plan and ELEVATIONS rendering DATE STAMPED APRIL 2, 2025, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2. The parking ratio to be one space for every 250 square feet.
2. THE PARKING RATIO TO BE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 250 SQUARE FEET.
3. Construction to commence within 24 months.
4. That it be a one-story office complex with a height limitation not to exceed
2. 24 feet.
3.
3. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
4. SHALL EXECUTE PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM.
THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ PHO-1-25—Z-323- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION 79-6 opposition X applicant
Northwest corner of
24th Street and
Missouri Avenue
APPEALED FROM: PC 9/4/2025
701 North 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 10/15/2025 Kurt Waldier
HEARING Gilbert Blilie PLLC
480-429-3061
kwaldier@gilbertblilie.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Second story windows should not be permitted on the property that is stipulated to be
a one-story building.
RECEIVED BY: 9/10/2025 RECEIVED ON: Andrew Birkelbach
Joshua Bednarek Dalia Adams
Tricia Gomes Camryn Thompson/Teresa Garcia
Racelle Escolar Micah Alexander
Sarah Stockham GIS
Adam Stranieri Byron Easton (for PHO appeals only)
Heather Klotz Village Planner - Robert Kuhfuss
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
REVISED 10/16/2024 vcm
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Alan Stephenson Date: November 4, 2025
Deputy City Manager
From: Joshua Bednarek
Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 50 ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2025, PUBLIC HEARING
AND MODIFICATION OF STIPULATION REQUEST - REZONING
APPLICATION PHO-1-25--Z-323-79-6 - NORTHWEST CORNER OF 24TH
STREET AND MISSOURI AVENUE
This memo serves to request the continuance of the agenda item scheduled for the
November 5, 2025, Formal Meeting, concerning the request to modify stipulations of
entitlement for a 1.16-acre site located at the northwest corner of 24th Street and
Missouri Avenue.
The applicant and appellant have begun developing modifications and additions to
the stipulations for the request. Staff recommends continuing this item to the
December 3, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to allow additional time for the
applicant and appellant to finalize the stipulations.
Approved: dU·?tfl
Alan Stephens:
Deputy City Manager
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
100 item(s)