View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

(CONTINUED FROM MAY 19, 2021) - Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption -
Amend City Code - Rezoning Application Z-56-20-4 - Southeast Corner of 3rd
Avenue and Coolidge Street (Ordinance G-6853)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning
Application Z-56-20-4 and rezone the site from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
and R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for
multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (0.18-acres) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) (3.11 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 3.29 acres
Proposed Use: A Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential

Owner: Donor Network of Arizona
Applicant: Trinsic Residential Group, Todd Gosselink
Representative: Withey Morris, PLC, Jason Morris

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case for WU Code
zoning on Jan. 26, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation,
by a vote of 15-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case for WU Code zoning on Feb. 4,
2021 and recommended approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Feb. 10, 2021 and a
petition for a 3/4 vote was submitted on Feb. 11, 2021.
Council Action: Item was continued from March 3 and 17, 2021. On April 7, 2021 the
amend the request to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning application.

Page 1078

PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case for PUD zoning on May 6, 2021
and recommended approval per the Addendum A Staff Report, with a modified
stipulation and additional stipulations, by a vote of 6-3.

Location
Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street
Council District: 4
Parcel Addresses: 201 W. Coolidge St.

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

Page 1079
ATTACHMENT A

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

ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-56-20-4) FROM R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
AND R-5 (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 3.29-acre property located at the southeast

corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street, in a portion of Section 20, Township 2 North,

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

0.18-acres of “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District) and 3.11 acres of “R-5” (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,

Page 1080
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 Aura Uptown 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 April 29, 2021,
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 8, Development Standards Table, Building Height: Modify
building height standard to read as follows:

North Street Frontage/West Street
Frontage: 48 feet
(units along the north and west)
East Frontage/South Frontage: 56 feet

c. Page 8, Development Standards Table, Minimum Open Space:
Modify minimum open space standard to read as follows:

15% publicly accessible open space
5% general open space
(including canalscape)

d. Page 9, Landscape Development Standards Table, Canalscape;
Modify the first bullet point to read as follows: A publicly
accessible landscaped greenspace area shall be provided
adjacent to the Arizona Grand Canal Trail on the south side of
the property. At minimum, the green space area will measure
4,800 square feet, 15 feet in depth for a distance of 260 feet, 7
feet in depth for a distance of 70 feet, and shall be generally
consistent with the landscape plan in Exhibit 7. A minimum of 3
pedestrian amenities, which could include but are not limited to,
benches and shade canopies shall be provided within the
landscape area.

e. Page 9, Landscape Development Standards Table, Streetscape
(Coolidge Street and 3rd Avenue Frontages); Add a bullet point
to read as follows:
Half of the trees along the north and west perimeter shall be
salvaged, and if unsalvageable they must be replaced with a
minimum 4-inch caliper tree or two 2-inch caliper trees.

Page 1081
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps,
streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per
plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

3. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on
panel 1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated 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 not
limited to provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain
Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to
the Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department
for review and approval of Floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or
CLOMR prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

4. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such
documents shall be according to the templates and instructions
provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

5. 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.

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

Page 1082
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 19th day of May 2021.

________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager

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

Page 1083
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-56-20-4

A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CALCULATED CENTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION
20, BEING THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND CAMPBELL
AVENUE AS REFERENCED IN THE MONUMENT CORNER TIES FOR LINE
SECTION 2 CENTRAL PHOENIX LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, IN
DOCUMENT 2009-0003295, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20,
A DISTANCE OF 1,318.52 FEET TO A CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP
FLUSH “RLS 39131” MARKING THE CENTERLINE OF 3RD AVENUE AND
CAMPBELL AVENUE;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 3RD AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 564.11 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 20 SECONDS
WEST ALONG SAID LINE, A DISTANCE OF 416.71 FEET TO THE
CENTERLINE OF 3RD AVENUE AND COOLIDGE STREET, BEING SOUTH
1.69 FEET AND 3.40 FEET OF TWO CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAPS;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST, ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COOLIDGE STREET A DISTANCE OF 358.31
FEET, BEING 966.10 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL
AVENUE AND COOLIDGE STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 348.85, FEET DEPARTING SAID COOLIDGE STREET, ALONG
THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF THAT SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
RECORDED IN 2001-0882094, AND THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION
THEREOF, TO A POINT 25 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 1, MEASURED AT 90 DEGREES;
THENCE ALONG A 25 FOOT SOUTHERLY OFFSET OF THE SOUTH LINES
FOR LOTS 15, 17 AND 19 OF ‘SUBURBAN ACRES’ AS RECORDED IN
BOOK 13, PAGE 22 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
SOUTH 72 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 53 SECONDS WEST, DISTANCE OF
65.89 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY OFFSET, SOUTH 74
DEGREES 12 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 147.10 FEET;

Page 1084
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY OFFSET, SOUTH 78
DEGREES 50 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 123.95 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 142,789 SQUARE FEET OR 3.278 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.

Page 1085
Page 1086
$WWDFKPHQW%

Staff Report Z-56-20-4
January , 2021

Alhambra Village Planning Committee January 26, 2021
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 4, 2021
Request From: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(0.18 acres) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) (3.11 acres)
Request To: WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban
Code, Transect 5:5, Uptown Character
Area) (3.29 acres)
Proposed Use: Multifamily Residential
Location: Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street
Owner: Donor Network of Arizona

Applicant: Trinsic Residential Group, Todd
Gosselink
Representative: Withey Morris PLC, Jason Morris

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity

Residential 15+
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Dwelling Units Per Acre

Local Varies from 30 to 40
3rd Avenue
Street foot east half street
Street Map
Classification
Local Varies from 25 to 30
Coolidge Street
Street foot south half street

Page 1087
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

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 development, as proposed, will create new housing opportunities in the area and
within close proximity to a light rail station, the educational facilities, and the North
Central Avenue Employment Center, especially via the Grand Canal Multiuse Trail.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Locate parking to the rear of a site to create a more
pedestrian environment, when adequate shielding from noise and light can be
provided to adjacent established neighborhoods. On-street parking in some
areas may also promote a pedestrian environment.
The development, as required by provisions of the Walkable Urban Code, will situate
buildings to frame the street environment with vehicle parking lots situated at the
interior of the site and to allow for the creation of a comfortable pedestrian
environment along the public streets. Further, the development, as stipulated, will
screen parking from the Grand Canal and its multiuse trail.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREE AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development, as stipulated, will create an attractive streetscape with detached
and shaded sidewalks. The shade incorporated into the development along its
frontages will reduce the urban heat island effect and increase thermal comfort which
will make the area more walkable, bikeable, and sustainable.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The development, as stipulated, includes bicycle parking and bicycle facilities as a
central component of the project to facilitate bicycling as a way of life. Features
include secure bicycle parking for residents, convenient racks for guests, and a
bicycle repair station situated as a public amenity; together, these features will
complement the Grand Canal and its multiuse trail.

Page 1088
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CANALS AND TRAILS;
LAND USE PRINCIPLES: Plan, design, and develop pedestrian linkages
between parks, open spaces, village cores, neighborhood shopping centers,
neighborhood schools, and neighboring municipalities.
The subject site is immediately adjacent to the Grand Canal which recently was
improved through the Canalscape Project and provides regional connectivity, direct
connections to Phoenix Central High School, the Phoenix Coding Academy, Xavier
&ROOHJH3UHSDUDWRU\, Brophy &ROOHJH3UHSDUDWRU\, Steele Indian School Park, and
access to Central Avenue and the rail. The development, as stipulated, will add
vitality to this section of the Grand Canal and its multiuse trail as a community asset.

Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework: Background Item No.
5.
Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan: Background Item No. 6.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 10.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 11.
Housing Phoenix: Background Item No. 12.
Reimagine Phoenix: Background Item No. 13.

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Office R-3 and R-5
East Multifamily R-5
North (across Coolidge
Various residential R-3 and R-5
Street
South (across the
Multifamily R-4
Grand Canal)
West Single-family residential R-3

Page 1089
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

Walkable Urban Code
Transect 5:5 UT
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Gross Acreage No minimum 3.29
Total Number of Units No maximum 218 units
Density No maximum 66.26
Building Height 56 foot maximum 56 feet (Met)
Parking Structure Height Cannot exceed building height 58 feet (Not Met*)
Streetscape Standards (Section 1312.E)
Minor Collector and Local Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet 5 feet (Met)
Streets Minimum landscape width: 5 5 feet (Met)
feet (if no public utility conflict)
Main Building Setbacks
Primary Frontage (Coolidge 12 foot maximum Varies but less than
Street) 12 feet (Met)
Secondary Frontage (3rd 10 foot maximum 10 feet (Met)
Avenue)
Non Street (South and East) 0 foot minimum 15 feet and 10 feet
respectively (Met)
Parking Setbacks
Primary Frontage 30 foot minimum or behind Behind building
building (Met)
Secondary Frontage 20 foot minimum with a 10 foot Behind building
landscape setback measured (Met)
from the street right of way
Rear (West) 0 foot minimum Behind building
(Met)
Lot Requirements
Lot Coverage 80 percent maximum 73 percent (Met
Primary Building Frontage 70 percent minimum 94 percent (Met)
Secondary Building Frontage 50 percent minimum 83 percent (Met)

Page 1090
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

Walkable Urban Code
Transect 5:6 UT (Cont.)
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Frontage Types Allowed
Primary Frontage All frontages or alternative Storefront and
(Coolidge Street) frontages as per Section Stoop / Doorwell,
1305.B.1.c Met)
Secondary Frontage All frontages or alternative Stoop / Doorwell,
(3rd Avenue) frontages as per Section Met)
1305.B.1.c
Entry Requirements Common Entry: minimum one Not provided.
per 50 feet of primary building
frontage and one per 80 feet of
secondary frontage.

Other frontages as per Table
1305.1
Glazing Requirements Ground floor and second floor Not provided.
T4 standards apply for 25 percent minimum.
multifamily
Second floor (east and west):
10 percent minimum

Upper floors: not applicable
*Site plan adjustment required

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 3.29 acres at the southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) to WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code Transect 5:5,
Uptown Character Area).

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The proposed zoning of WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code Transect 5:5,
Uptown Character Area) permits a maximum height of 56 feet. The site is
currently developed with an office building. The Zoning Context Map depicts the
zoning entitlements of the subject site and the surrounding area.

Page 1091
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

East: Immediately east of Title: Zoning Context Map
the subject site is a
multifamily complex which
is zoned R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District). The
zoning permits a maximum
height of 48 feet but the
existing buildings do not
exceed three stories in
height.

West: West of the subject
site across 3rd Avenue are
residential structures of a Source: Planning and Development Department
single-story and single
-family detached character. The R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) zoning
permits a maximum height of 30 feet by right, and up to 48 feet with increased
setbacks.

North: North of the subject site across Coolidge Street are various residential
structures ranging from a single-family detached character to small apartment
complex, with neither type exceeding two stories. The approximate west half of
sites immediately north of the subject site are zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) which permits a maximum height of 30 feet by right, and up to 48 feet
with increased setbacks, and the remaining sites to the east are zoned R-5
(Multifamily Residence District) which permits a maximum height of 48 feet.

South (the Grand Canal): South of the subject site is the Grand Canal which
was recently improved through the Canalscape project which brought lighting,
landscaping, and seating improvements to this section of the canal.

South (beyond the Grand Canal): South of the subject site across the Grand
Canal is a multifamily community zoned R-4 (Multifamily Residence District)
which permits a maximum height of 48 feet.

3. Located along Central Avenue and several properties east of the subject site is
the Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1). The primary
purpose of TOD-1 was to encourage an appropriate mixture and density of
activity around transit stations to increase ridership along the light rail corridor
and promote alternative modes of transportation to the automobile while the
Walkable Urban Code was developed.

Page 1092
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
4. The General Plan Title: General Plan Land Use Map Excerpt
Land Use Map
depicts a land use
designation of
Residential 15+
dwelling units per
acre which is
consistent with the
density proposed.

Surrounding the
subject site are
designations for
multifamily
densities including Source: Planning and Development Department
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre to the south and east and Residential 10
to 15 dwelling units per acre to the north and west. The proposed use and
density of the subject site is consistent with the surrounding context.

5. The Encanto Village Character Plan was approved and adopted in the Phoenix
General Plan through General Plan Amendment GPA-1-19. Each of the 15
Urban Villages have a Character Plan.

The proposed project advances the following items identified in the Encanto
Village Character Plan: encourage growth along the light rail; integrating canals
into project design; and new development being consistent with adopted plans.

One such area of alignment is with the North Central Employment Center
(profile attached) which identifies the presence of approximately 770,000 young,
well-educated, workers within a 10 to 20 minute drive and projected growth of
170,000 new residents within a 30 minute drive. The proposed development will
provide housing opportunities for the growing population in proximity to the
growing employment center while also reducing the need for long vehicle
commutes.

Page 1093
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

6. Transit Oriented Title: Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy
Development Strategic Framework Place Type Map
Policy Framework:
The Transit Oriented
Development Strategic Policy
Framework is part of the
City’s General Plan. The
framework identifies planning
typologies to describe urban
environments in terms of
appropriate scale and
intensity

As depicted on the right, the
subject site is located within
one-quarter mile from two
light rail stations. The nearest
station, Central and
Campbell, is identified in the
Strategic Policy Framework
as a Minor Urban Center Source: Planning and Development Department
Place Type.

The Minor Urban Center Place Type is characterized by two to five story
buildings with allowances for up to seven when incentive criteria are met or
when a special circumstance exists. The proposed development, using the
Walkable Urban Code and depicting a height of four stories, is consistent with
the Minor Urban Center Place Type.

7. Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan:
The subject site is located within the Uptown TOD Planning Area which is
depicted on the following page. The policy plan adopted for the Uptown TOD
District provides a blueprint for fully achieving the transformative potential of
light rail in a sustainable manner. Changes advocated in the plan can lower
transportation costs for residents, create new business opportunities, encourage
active, healthy lifestyles, ensure Phoenix increases its competitive advantage in
the global marketplace, and improve prosperity by growing the economy in
locations with existing infrastructure and public services.

Page 1094
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

While the subject site is Title: Uptown TOD Planning Area
not mapped for a specific
recommended transect for
redevelopment, the
Uptown TOD District Plan
provides the following
direction relevant to the
subject site:

Activating the Grand
Canalscape:
The Uptown TOD Plan
describes at length the
importance and
opportunity of embracing
the Grand Canal as an
open space amenity, as a
regional active Source: Planning and Development Department
transportation trail, and as
waterfront. While the Canalscape Project is complete, it is the projects adjacent
to the Grand Canal that will enliven the waterfront.

Increase the Population Using Alternative Transportation: .
The Uptown TOD Plan includes several measurable outcomes focused on
increasing ridership on the light rail, increasing the number of individuals riding
bikes or walking to work, and decreasing the number of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT). The proposed project will position new households within walking and
bicycling distance to jobs, schools, and major park facilities.

PROPOSAL
8. Site Plan
As depicted on the conceptual site plans and elevations on the following pages,
the proposal is for four floors of housing with five levels of parking located at the
interior of the site. The site plan depicts one point of vehicular access from
Coolidge Street. The site plan depicts 218 dwelling units with 46 studios, 116
one-bedroom, and 56 two-bedroom units. At a rate of 1.3 parking spaces per
studio and 1.5 spaces per one and two bedroom units, the code would require
318 parking spaces but due to the proximity to light rail, a 10 percent reduction
is applied for a total of 287 spaces.

Page 1095
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

Title: Conceptual Site Plan

Source: Rich Barber Architects

The ground floor units fronting 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street will employ
stoop and doorwell frontages and the main leasing area oriented to Coolidge
Street will employ a storefront frontage; these ground level treatments abide by
the intent of the Walkable Urban Code to active the street frontage in addition to
detached sidewalks and trees planted between the curb and sidewalk as
required by the Walkable Urban Code.

The conceptual site plan depicts frontage types along the southern face of the

Page 1096
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

building mass to activate the interface with the canal. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 1 to require the frontage types along 40 percent of the canal
oriented building frontage.

9. Canal Interface
The conceptual site plan and building elevations depict measures intended to
embrace and activate the frontage to the Grand Canal including amenity areas,
common areas, bike racks, a bicycle repair station, vegetation, and a perimeter
wall comprised mostly of view fence for ground level transparency. The Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance governs canal interface through the design standards
contained in Section 507 Tab A.

To advance the intent of the design guidelines and the Walkable Urban Code,
staff is recommending a series of stipulations to provide additional specificity
regarding improvements to the area between the southern mass of the building
and the Grand Canal right-of-way including the following:

x Stipulation No. 1: To require Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types along
a minimum 50 percent of the canal-facing building façade.
x Stipulation No. 2: To require architectural enhancements along the canal-
facing building façade.
x Stipulation No. 3: To require large canopy shade trees to soften the canal
environment and provide thermal comfort in the amenity areas and near
the canal.
o Due to the presence of an SRP easement at this location, the
extent to which the developer will be allowed to improve this are is
unknown and, therefore, the stipulation contains the language “as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
x Stipulation No. 4: To require shaded open space adjacent to the canal
right-of-way through the application of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
o Due to the presence of an SRP easement at this location, the
extent to which the developer will be allowed to improve this are is
unknown and, therefore, the stipulation contains the language “as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
x Stipulation No. 5: To require all walls and fences within 30 feet and
oriented-to the canal right-of-way to have a maximum opaque height of
36 inches to promote interface between the project and the canal
amenity.

Page 1097
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

10. Conceptual Elevations
The conceptual building elevations, pictured below, depict a four story
multifamily complex exhibiting modern design elements, multiple colors, building
articulation, shaded upper floor balconies, and a mix of ground floor frontage
treatments including stoops, doorwells, and storefronts.

Title: Conceptual Building Elevations

Source: Rich Barber Architects

Page 1098
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

STUDIES AND POLICIES
11. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached
from the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to
provide thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island
effect.

The Walkable Urban Code contains landscape standards to provide enhanced
tree plantings with a focus on thermal comfort and the conceptual site plan
complies with code requirements.

To require tree shade be integrated into the project between the southern
building mass and the Grand Canal right-of-way, staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 3 requiring large canopy shade trees, placed 20 feet on center or
in equivalent groupings, and with a minimum caliper of 3-inches at installation;
the purpose of this stipulation is to promote thermal comfort for the amenity
areas and along the Grand Canal.

12. Complete Streets Guidelines:
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The Walkable Urban Code contains
requirements for detached sidewalks with vegetative shade which will enhance
the thermal comfort and sense of security for pedestrians passing on adjacent
sidewalks.

Staff is recommending Stipulation No. 8 to require enhanced bicycle facilities on
the site including secure bicycle parking for residents, bicycle racks for guests,
and a publicly accessible bicycle repair station near the southern edge of the
site; the purpose of these stipulations is to complement 3rd Avenue which is
identified as the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway and the Grand Canal multiuse trail
which provides regional trail connectivity.

13. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan:
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan is a guide for creating a culture and
environment conducive to bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. The
proximity to high capacity transit underscores the importance of walking and
bicycling in this area.

Page 1099
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

Recognizing the presence of the Grand Canal, the recently completed
Canalscape investments, the presence of the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway, and
proximity to high capacity transit, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 8 which
requires secure bicycle parking for residents, bicycle parking for guests, and a
publicly accessible bicycle repair station.

14. Housing Phoenix:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with the vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.

The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant or
underutilized land in a more sustainable fashion.

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 provision of recycling
containers was not addressed in the applicant’s submittals.

COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
16. As of the writing of this report, one letter of opposition was received detailing
concerns relating to scale, privacy, traffic, the abundance of multifamily, and the
design compatibility with the historic district.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
17. The Fire Department commented that the site plan must comply with the
Phoenix Fire Code and further indicated there are no problems anticipated with
the case. Further, the Department commented that they do not know the water
supply at this site and noted that additional water supply may be required to
meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.

Page 1100
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

18. The Public Works Department, Floodplain Management Division determined the
site is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel 1740 L of
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The Public
Works Department provided Stipulation No. 10 to require the applicant follow
and document all necessary processes and improvements.

19. The Street Transportation Department provided Stipulation Nos. 6, 7, and 9 to
require traffic calming at vehicular driveways, two pedestrian connections to the
Grand Canal trail, and their standard stipulation regarding the applicant being
responsible for construction of adjacent streets, respectively.

The Street Transportation Department including the Pedestrian Safety
Coordinator further commented on the importance of enhanced pedestrian and
bicycle facilities including detached sidewalks, bicycle parking, a bicycle repair
station, and connections to the Grand Canal trail. These issues are addressed
in other stipulations or will be addressed through the application of the Walkable
Urban Code.

20. The Public Transit Department commented on the need for a robust system of
shaded pedestrian pathways with measures to delineate pedestrian crossings at
drive-aisles. These issues are addressed in other stipulations or will be
addressed through the application of the Walkable Urban Code.

OTHER
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
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 13.

22. Based on the proximity to Sky Harbor Airport, the Aviation Department is
requiring Stipulation Nos. 11 and 12 which require recorded documents to
disclose the existence of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners and residents, and
that an avigation easement be recorded.

23. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments may be required.

Page 1101
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Residential 15+ Dwelling Units Per Acre and the TOD Strategic Policy Framework
Minor Urban Center Place Type designation.

2. The development advances the vision and recommendations contained in the
Uptown Transit Oriented Development Plan and will support pedestrian oriented
development near the light rail and multiple urban bikeways.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options for the significant number of
residents in the Uptown TOD District.

Stipulations

1. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.

2. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.

3. Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The provisions of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

Page 1102
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

5. No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible pedestrian
connections from the amenity areas located south of the building mass to the
shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge of the
site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and / or the Grand
Canal Trail. The station shall include but not limited to: standard repair
tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair
stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while adjusting the
bike.

b. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

c. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at
a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces near
entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section
1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

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

10. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The
following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:

Page 1103
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

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 not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the
Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR
prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

11. 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.

12. 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.

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

Writer
Nick Klimek
January 20, 2021

Team Leader
Samantha Keating

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan and Elevations date stamped October 19, 2020 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (4 pages)

Page 1104
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021

North Central Employment Center Profile (2 pages)

Page 1105
ELM ST

1ST AVE
C-2 H-R*
R-4 HP R-4A H-R * Z-60-85
Z-83-05
Z-9-89
P-1 * R-5 C-2
R-4 Z-341-83
HIGHLAND AVE

R-3
3RD AVE
R-3
R-3 PUD
Z-31-12
Z-83-05

COOLIDGE ST
R-3
R-5
R-5 *
Z-245-82 TOD District Canalscape
C-2
- UpTown
HAZELWOOD ST

R-4
CENTRAL AVE
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
Central Avenue Z-175-87
Development Z-147-97
Standards
P-1 Transit C-2
MINNEZONA AVE Overlay District
(TOD-1)
C-2
R1-6 H-R
R1-6 P-2
2ND AVE
R-4 HP * HP
5TH AVE
Z-SP-16-72 Z-12-97 C-2
CAMPBELL AVE

R-4A*
Z-12-97
Z-102-98

I
Miles
Z-56-20 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

0.055 0.0275 0 0.055 BETHANY HOME RD
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
CAMELBACK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
43RD AVE 7ST AVE
7TH AVE
19TH AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE

I-17

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Trinsic Residential Group, Todd Gosselin
FROM:
R-3 ( 0.18 a.c.)
10/23/2020
R-5 ( 3.11 a.c.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-56-20 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.29 Acres QS 18-27 H-8 TO: WU Code T5:5 UT ( 3.29 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3, R-5 2, 135 3, 162
WU Code T5:5 UT No Maximum N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 1106
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-56-20.mxd
ELM ST

1ST AVE
C-2 H-R*
R-4 HP R-4A H-R * Z-60-85
Z-83-05
Z-9-89
P-1 * R-5 C-2
R-4 Z-341-83
HIGHLAND AVE

R-3
3RD AVE
R-3
R-3 PUD
Z-31-12
Z-83-05

COOLIDGE ST
R-3
R-5
R-5 *
Z-245-82 TOD District Canalscape
C-2
- UpTown
HAZELWOOD ST

R-4
CENTRAL AVE
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
Central Avenue Z-175-87
Development Z-147-97
Standards
P-1 Transit C-2
MINNEZONA AVE Overlay District
(TOD-1)
C-2
R1-6 H-R
R1-6 P-2
2ND AVE
R-4 HP * HP
5TH AVE
Z-SP-16-72 Z-12-97 C-2
CAMPBELL AVE

R-4A*
Z-12-97
Z-102-98
Maricopa County Assessor's Office

I
Miles
Z-56-20 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

0.055 0.0275 0 0.055 BETHANY HOME RD
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
CAMELBACK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
43RD AVE 7ST AVE
7TH AVE
19TH AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE

I-17

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Trinsic Residential Group, Todd Gosselin
FROM:
R-3 ( 0.18 a.c.)
10/23/2020
R-5 ( 3.11 a.c.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-56-20 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.29 Acres QS 18-27 H-8 TO: WU Code T5:5 UT ( 3.29 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3, R-5 2, 135 3, 162
WU Code T5:5 UT No Maximum N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 1107
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-56-20.mxd
(;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/<
/(*$/'(6&5,37,21 5 5 5 5 5
'(9(/230(17'$7$
7+(/$1'5()(55('72+(5(,1%(/2:,66,78$7(',17+(&2817< 6
2+( 2+( 2+(
2+( 2+( 2+( 2+( 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
2)0$5,&23$67$7(2)$5,=21$$1',6'(6&5,%('$6)2//2:6 AURA
* * * * 75,16,&5(6,'(17,$/*5283,17(1'672'(9(/23$1(;&(37,21$/81,708/7,)$0,/<
3$5&(/12
5(6,'(17,$/ )255(17 3523(577+(:(67+$/)2)/27$1'7+(($67+$/)2)/2768%85%$1 6/*
&22/,'*(675((7 38%/,&52$':$< $1'&22/,'*(675((7
$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(
:: * * *
( * * : :
&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1 : : * * *
° °63

=21,1* '(16,7< $31
%22.2)0$363$*( 5&
35,0$5<)5217$*(/275(48,5(0(170,1
5&
: : : :
COOLIDGE
3529,'(' &855(175 352326(' % 3RD AVENUE AND COOLIDGE
(;&(377+(1257+)((7)25675((7385326(6 )2
2+( 6725()5217 67223 '225:(// 67223 '225:(// 352326(':87 '8$&5( 81,76
3$5&(/12 : : : 67223 '225:(// : : : : : : :
PHOENIX, AZ 85013
: : : : : :
7+(:(67+$/)2)/2768%85%$1$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$7
2)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$ /27$5($ $00(1,7,(6

&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1%22.2)0$363$*( : (
*8/<+='? 52: *5266 6) DFUHV 322/63$),71(66
(;&(377+(1257+)((7)2552$' :
: :
:
3$5&(/12 1(7 6) DFUHV 5(&5($7,21&/8%5220%,.(

6725$*(
f Rich B
/2768%85%$1$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+( 6 :

2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$
2+( 6 (
( (

( ( (
)2 )2 )2 )2 ( &216758&7,217<3( 6(7%$&.6 3(5&+$37(575$16(&77
eo
5(&25'(',1%22.2)0$363$*( 6
6 (
(;&(377+(5()5207+(1257+)((77+(5(2) )2 3$5.,1**$5$*( ,$ 35,0$5<)5217$*( &22/,'*( 0$;
(;&(377+(5()5207+(:(67)((77+(5(2)$1' *$5$*( (/(& 5(6,'(17,$/ 9$ 6(&21'$5<)5217$*( UG$9( 0$;
( %8,/',1*+(,*+7
(;&(377+(5()520$1<3$577+(5(2)/<,1*:,7+,17+(:(67 (175<(;,7 6,'(/27/,1( ($67 0,1
)((72)7+(6287+($6748$57(52)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52) 0$;)((7
Of
3529,'(' )((7
6(&7,2172:16+,31257+5$1*(($672)7+(*,/$$1' : %8,/',1*$5($6
6$/75,9(5%$6($1'0(5,',$10$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$$6
3529,'(',1'(('5(&25'(',1'2&.(73$*(
0$; 81,70,; /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)

er Arch
2+( /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)
3$5&(/12 67$,5
678',2
6725<5(&/($6,1* 6(7%$&.
LLC fic
7+(6287+)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1 67$,5 (/(& /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)
%('5220
arb
$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+( 81,76:,7+ /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)
&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1 )2 %('5220
0$; 6725< 727$/ 6)
%22.2)0$363$*( 6(7%$&. 6725< 0(==$1,1($%29( 727$/81,76
cture,
(;&(377+()2//2:,1*'(6&5,%('3$5&(/)2552$':$< 0(==$1,1(
0(==$1,1( *$5$*(%8,/',1*$5($6 ite
385326(6 $//81,766+$//%(2)$7/($67$16,
( /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
7+$73$572)7+(6287+)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/27 7<3( % $&&(66,%,/,7<67$1'$5'6
2+( : /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
68%85%$1$&5(6/<,1*:,7+,1)((72)7+(02180(17/,1(2) 2)81,7672%($16,7<3( $ WorldHQ@ORBArch.com
7+,5'$9(18($66$,'02180(17/,1(,66+2:1217+(3/$72) $&&(66,%,/,7<67$1'$5'6 /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
6287+3,(56213/$&(7+(3/$72):+,&+,65(&25'(',1%22. /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
(/(9 75$6+
2)0$363$*( *$5$*(/(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
/27&29(5$*(
3$5&(/12
)2 67$,5 /(9(// *$5$*( *$5$*($5($ 6) 8 + * ' 8 ). /
7+(6287+)((72)7+(:(67)((72)7+(($67)((72) :+ :+
$5($3529,'(' /9
1 ( 727$/ 6) - :/
, / )' : + ) :
7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1$&5(6$1'7+(1257+ (/(9 8+
+8
6,7(1(7$5($ )
)((72)7+(6287+)((72)7+(:(67)((72)7+(($67 6725<5(6,'(17,$/ /2%%< 3(5&(173529,'('
2+(
)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1$&5(6 23(163$&(

$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817< 35,0$5<)5217$*(5(48,5('0,1,080 5LFK%DUEHU
: 5(48,5(' 2)*5266$&5($*(
5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1%22. 3529,'('
( *G Z
2)0$363$*( 6(& K
9O M
$5($3529,'(' T K J
3$5&(/12 6(&21'$5<)5217$*(5(48,5('0,1,080 '8
7+(1257+)((72)7+(:(67)((72)7+(($67)((72) (;,67,1* 9$1 &(17(5&2857<$5' 6) / @ 5 4 ; 9 '
'
3529,'('
7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1$&5(6$&&25',1*72 )2 6287+&2857<$5' 6) +^VOXKY°°
6,1*/(
3/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52) 727$/ 6)
)$0,/< 2+(
0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1%22.2)0$363$*( 6,7(*5266$5($
5
3$5.,1* 3(5&(173529,'(' 6)6)
(;&(37,1*7+(5()5207+$73257,212)7+(/$1'&219(<('72 6(6 (;,67,1*
:$7(5
7+(&,7<2)3+2(1,;$081,&,3$/&25325$7,21025( )($785( 5 5(48,5('
:
0$,17(1$1&(
3$57,&8/$5/<'(6&5,%(',148,7&/$,0'(('5(&25'(' 63$&(63(5678',2 [
129(0%(5$62)2)),&,$/5(&25'6 63$&(63(5 %(' [ */$=,1*

3$5&(/12 ),5( 727$/5(48,5(' 36
3,7 (

7+(($67)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1 2+( 5(485,('3(57$%/(75$16(&77
$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+( )2 5$0383 5('8&7,21
0,1,080*5281')/225
&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1 1 ( 0$; 5('8&7,21)25352;,0,7<72/,*+75$,/ )5217$*( ; 6)
%22.2)0$363$*( 6(7%$&. 67$7,21
*/$=,1* 6)
(;&(377+(1257+)((77+(5(2) 36[ 5(48,5('63$&(6

3529,'('
3529,'('
&,7<2)3+2(1,;6,7(3/$1127(6 6)6)
:
UG$9(18( 38%/,&52$':$<
/2$',1* 35263(&7,9(5(6,'(17
=21(

'HYHORSPHQWDQGXVHRIWKLVVLWHZLOOFRQIRUPZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHFRGHV 5(6,'(17*$5$*( ),5(635,1./(56
(/(9
DQGRUGLQDQFHV 2+( 6 : 727$/3529,'('
)2 6725<5(6,'(17,$/
$OOQHZRUUHORFDWHGXWLOLWLHVZLOOEHSODFHGXQGHUJURXQG 1 :
(;,67,1* 1)3$
³6WUXFWXUHVDQGODQGVFDSLQJZLWKLQDWULDQJOHPHDVXUHGEDFN¶ IURP 6,1*/(
*$5$*( +(,*+7 $&&(66,%/(3$5.,1* ,1&/8'(',1&2817
WKHSURSHUW\OLQHDQG¶ DORQJWKHSURSHUW\OLQHRQHDFKVLGHRIWKH )$0,/< 5(48,5('
GULYHZD\VHQWUDQFHVZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDWDPD[LPXPKHLJKWRI¶´
%8,/',1*)5217$*((175<
5
6WUXFWXUHVDQGODQGVFDSLQJZLWKLQDWULDQJOHPHDVXULQJ¶ [¶ DORQJ 6(&21'$5<)5217$*(/275(48,5(0(170,1,080
*$5$*(/ 36 9$1$&&(6,%/( 5(48,5(0(176
WKHSURSHUW\OLQHVZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDWDPD[LPXPKHLJKWRI¶ *$5$*(/ 36
$Q\OLJKWLQJZLOOEHSODFHGVRDVWRGLUHFWOLJKWDZD\IURPDGMDFHQW : *$5$*(/ 36 5(48,5(' 75$16(&77
6 ( 35,0$5<%8,/',1*)5217$*(
UHVLGHQWLDOGLVWULFWVDQGZLOOQRWH[FHHGRQHIRRWFDQGOHDWWKHSURSHUW\ 5$0383
OLQH1RQRLVHRGRURUYLEUDWLRQZLOOEHHPLWWHGDWDQ\OHYHOH[FHHGLQJ 3529,'(' 36 9$1$&&(6,%/( 6(&21'$5<%8,/',1*)5217$*(
6725<
WKHJHQHUDOOHYHORIQRLVHRGRURUYLEUDWLRQHPLWWHGE\XVHVLQWKHDUHD :
2+( :
Page 1108
RXWVLGHRIWKHVLWH )2 0(==$1,1(
2ZQHUVRISURSHUW\DGMDFHQWWRSXEOLFULJKWVRIZD\ZLOOKDYHWKH .(<127(6
UHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUPDLQWDLQLQJDOOODQGVFDSLQJORFDWHGZLWKLQWKHULJKWVRI
3529,'('
:

ZD\LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDSSURYHGSODQV
$OOURRIWRSHTXLSPHQWDQGVDWHOOLWHGLVKHVVKDOOEHVFUHHQHGWRWKH $&&(66,%/(*$5$*(63$&( [

KHLJKWRIWKHWDOOHVWHTXLSPHQW 9(+,&8/$56/,',1**$7(
)2
$OOVHUYLFHDUHDVVKDOOEHVFUHHQHGWRFRQFHDOWUDVKFRQWDLQHUVORDGLQJ 6,'(:$/.6((/$1'6&$3(
GRFNVWUDQVIRUPHUVEDFNIORZSUHYHQWHUVDQGRWKHUPHFKDQLFDORU 6,'(:$/.6((/$1'6&$3(
HOHFWULFDOHTXLSPHQWIURPH\HOHYHODGMDFHQWWRDOOSXEOLFVWUHHWV 52: (/(9
)2 [ 6,*+79,6,%,/,7<75,$1*/(
/2%%<
67223 '225:(//
%DUEHGUD]RURUFRQFHUWLQDZLUH RUVLPLODU VKDOOQRWEHXVHGRQWKLV 67$,5
322/ 9$1 9$1 [ 6,*+79,6,%,/,7<75,$1*/(
VLWHZKHUHYLVLEOHIURPSXEOLFVWUHHWVRUDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQWLDODUHDV &29(5(' (48,30(17
+( 3$9,/,21 (/(9

$OOVLJQDJHUHTXLUHVVHSDUDWHUHYLHZVDSSURYDOVDQGSHUPLWV1R )2 %8,/',1*(175<(;,7

VLJQVDUHDSSURYHGSHUWKLVSODQ : (;7(1'('3$7,2672236
*DWHVDUHWRUHPDLQRSHQRUDUHWRRSHQDXWRPDWLFDOO\EHWZHHQWKH (175<67$,5
%%4
KRXUVRIBBBBBBDQGBBBBBB )2
*$5$*((175<$7*5281'/(9(/:,7+5(6,'(17,$/81,76/(9(/6
3OHDVHFRQVLGHUSODFLQJWKHIROORZLQJQRWH VLJQHGDQGGDWHG RQWKHVLWH
SODQWRDXWKRUL]HPLQRUDPHQGPHQWWRWKHSODQLQWKHIXWXUH 6($7:$// 75$6++2/',1*5220)8//<6&5((1('$7*5281'/(9(/:,7+5(6,'(17,$/
)2 81,76/(9(/6((62/,':$67(1$55$7,9(7+,66+((7
,FRQVHQWWRWKHUHSURGXFWLRQRIWKLVVLWHSODQSURYLGHGWKDWLI *$0(/$:1 75$6+&203$&725

PRGLILFDWLRQVDUHPDGHWKHSURIHVVLRQDOVZKRPDNHVXFKFKDQJHV )2
6($7:$// 9(+,&8/$57851$55281'63$&(
DVVXPHIXOOUHVSRQVLELOLW\DQGOLDELOLW\IRUWKHPRGLILHGSRUWLRQVRIWKH 0(&+$1,&$/9(17,/$7,216+$)7
),5(
SODQ 3,7
2+( *8/<+='? [ /2$',1*=21(21(/2$',1*%$<5(48,5('3(5:8&2'(7$%/(
)2 :

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6,*1$785(2)&23<5,*+72:1(5'$7( (;+,67,1*),5(+<'5$17
)2
6725<
5LFK%DUEHU
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 0(==$1,1(
35,17('1$0(2)&23<5,*+72:1(5
2+(
),5(3/$&(

62/,':$67(127(6 1 :
:
&2857<$5'
62/,':$67(1$55$7,9(
75$6+&+87(6$5(/2&$7(',17+(3$5.,1**$5$*(21$//
)/2256$1'$1$'',7,21$/&+87(/2&$7('217+(:(676,'( 67$,5
6<17+(7,&
2)%8,/',1* %%4 /$:1

6725<),71(66 6725< 5(9,6,21668%0,77$/6
75$6+7(50,1$7,2152206$5(/2&$7(',13$5.,1**$5$*(
$7*5$'(/(9(/$1'21:(676,'(2)%8,/',1*:+(5(75$6+ 81,76:,7+ 0(==$1,1( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
)2 )2 )2 )2 )2 )2 )2 )2

,6&203$&7('$1'3/$&(',172<'%,1675$6+%,16$5( 0(==$1,1($%29( 75/( .,9$352-(&7
7$.(172+2/',1*5220/2&$7('$7*5$'(/(9(/211257+ 67$,5
6( : 6'(9
6,'(2)*$5$*(+2/',1*5220,6&203/(7(/<(1&/26('$1' (;
)$&7
/,*+7
/
6
6&5((1(':,7+*$7(6 6(((/(9$7,216 2175$6+3,&.83 0$; (17 3$33

'$<6%,16$5(7$.(1287%<67$))723529,'('67$*,1*$5($ 2+( 6(7%$&. ($60 46
)25&2//(&7,21<'5(&<&/(%,1:,//%(3529,'(',1 %(1&+
237,21$/

/$:1

3257$/
*$5$*($&&(66,%/(72$//5(6,'(1765(&<&/(%,1:,//%(
*$0(/$:1
%.
52//('287213,&.83'$<7267$*,1*$5($ ),71(66/$:1
6725<
5(48,5('62/,':$67(&$3$&,7< %,.(
5(3$,5 0(==$1,1( %%4
),5(3,7 %(1&+
0,1,75$6+&203$&7256$5(/2&$7(',17+(3$5.,1* &2857<$5' 6($7:$//

*$5$*(/(9(/($&+&203$&725&203$&7675$6+,172<' 2+( 5'$9(18(
%,.( : 7+$9(18(
%,16 /$:1
5$&.6
&(175$/$9(18(
&22/,'*(675((7
0,1,75$6+&203$&725,6/2&$7('21/(9(/ :(676,'( 6

2)%8,/',1* &203$&725&203$&7675$6+,172<'%,16 6,7(
1(,*+%25+22' (;
&8%,&<$5'63(581,7; &<6(59,&('7:,&( 3$5.3$7,2 /,*+7

3(5:((. &<&203$&7,212) &<3(5
%(1&+ %,.(
6(59,&(7:,&(3(5:((. 5$&.6 $1$/
5$03
&<3(56(59,&(&<3(5%,1 0,12)%,16,1+2/',1* *5$1'& DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2020 ORB #: 20-212
5220
$6,1*/(&<5(&<&/(%,1$5(/2&$7(',1*$5$*(1($50$,1 $60(17 &$03%(//$9(18(

(175<6(59,&(:,//%(%$6('2186($1'%8,/',1* /$:1
(
(: $/.
2&&83$1&< * 6,'
%. : 7,1 $/
(;
(;,6 '&$1
/,*+7
6 *5$1
(
2+
2+(

2+
(
35(/,0,1$5<6,7(3/$1
9,&,1,7<0$3
A1.10
6&$/(
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
127726&$/(
(/3° °'[XG°)UUROJMKE'[XG°)UUROJMKX\Z
Page 1109
&LW\RI3KRHQL[(PSOR\PHQW&HQWHU3UR´OH

NORTH CENTRAL
The North Central
employment center Labor Force Accessibility and Skills
offers an exceptional The North Central employment center offers excellent access to a large portion
of the metro area’s 1.7 million workers. Approximately 770,000 young, well-educated
location in one of the workers reside within a 30 minute drive time.1 High concentrations of service and
FLW\VSUHPLHURI´FH health care workers live within 10 to 20 minutes. In addition, about 16 percent of the
corridors. workforce living within a 20 minute drive time is made up of executives, managers
and technical professionals.2
Projected growth for this area will result in close to 170,000 new residents within
a 30 minute drive time by 2020, providing a continually expanding labor pool.3
This employment
center extends from 1, 2, 3 Claritas, 2015.
McDowell Road north
to Camelback Road
between Seventh
Street and Seventh Employment by Occupation
Avenue. The North Workforce 10 Min. Drive 20 Min. Drive 30 Min. Drive
Central area includes Number % Number % Number %
KLJKULVHRI´FHDQG
Management 7,416 7 57,595 8 131,498 9
residential buildings
Engineering & Science 2,224 2 16,777 2 36,046 3
surrounded by
historic single family Healthcare & Education 11,089 10 82,493 11 170,387 12
neighborhoods, parks Service 16,173 15 109,119 15 195,911 14
and cultural amenities. Sales 10,112 9 81,075 11 167,369 12
Clerical & Admin. Support 15,143 14 117,524 16 219,346 16
Construction 8,978 8 48,001 6 71,611 5
Production 6,210 6 39,874 5 64,441 5
Trans./Material Mover 6,373 6 46,614 6 76,283 5
Total 83,718 599,072 1,132,892
Source: Claritas, 2015.

Commute Shed
Commuters who travel to
Employment Corridor per
Square Mile
4 to 10
10 to 25
25 to 50
More than 50
• Access to a large executive Phoenix North Central Job Center
and professional workforce Phoenix North Central Job
Center Catchment Area

• Advanced
telecommunications
infrastructure

• /DUJHLQYHQWRU\RIRI´FH
space

• Competitive lease rates
Source: Maricopa Association of
• Superior accessibility to Governments, TRP Reduction Database,
NH\EXVLQHVVDQG´QDQFLDO 2013
services
Equal Opportunity Employer/Program. Auxiliary Aids and services are available upon request to individuals with
Page 1110
disabilities. Products and services made available through Federal Funding provided by the Workforce Investment Act.
Camelback Rd.
Metro Light Rail
Existing and Planned
Sites and Buildings Development
The North Central employment center offers 1. Century Link Tower
a large inventory of office and commercial 586,403 sq. ft.

Central Ave.
space mixed with a variety of hotel and Office

7th Ave.
Steele Indian
residential developments. From high-rise office
7th St.
2. Viad Tower Phase II School Park
buildings and condominiums to palm tree-lined 478,488 sq. ft.
streets of historic single-family neighborhoods, Office - Proposed
diversity enhances the appeal of this 3. Phoenix Corporate Tower
445,811 sq. ft.
conveniently located area. Indian School Rd.
Office
The area has about 14.5 million square feet 4. Phoenix Plaza Tower II
of existing office space in close proximity to 419,453 sq. ft.
downtown. For companies that require build-to- Office
suit space, there are prime commercial high-rise 5. Phoenix Plaza Tower I
418,613 sq. ft. 8
parcels available.4 Osborn Rd.
The map to the right highlights the type Office
of community real estate in the North Central 6. Younan Central Plaza
405,693
area. Our team can provide more detail, custom 3
Office
information based on your requirements. 7. 2800 Tower 4
364,533 sq. ft. 5 1
Thomas Rd.
4 CoStar Realty Information Inc., 2015 Office
8. 3550 Tower 7
287,269 sq. ft.
Connectivity Office
9. Park Central - Bldg 7
The North Central employment center 224,953 sq. ft.
features modern, reliable telecommunications Office
10. Security Title Plaza
infrastructure that is supported by multiple
219,032 sq. ft.
providers. These providers are able to offer Office 2
specialized capabilities such as complete digital
infrastructure, T-1 (DS1) lines, T-3 (DS3) lines, McDowell Rd.
Source: CoStar Realty Information Inc., 2015
self-healing ﬁber ring architecture and high-
speed data communications. Local exchange
carriers with service in the North Central area Amenities and Attractions
include CenturyLink and Cox Communications.
The exciting Phoenix Arts District includes the Phoenix Art Museum
and Theater, the Playhouse on the Park and the internationally renowned
Infrastracture Heard Museum of Native American Art. Steele Indian School Park, located
Abundant and reliable power sources at the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Indian School Road, features
are available from a highly advanced network an expansive 15-acre entry garden, several historical buildings depicting the
system that provides redundant feeds from history of Phoenix Indian School, an amphitheater with seating for 1,500, a
multiple sub-stations. 2.5-acre bird-shaped lake and waterfall and a 15-acre neighborhood park.
The North Central employment center enjoys Located in the heart of the North Central employment center, Park Central
easy access to a modern network of urban is a 500,000 square foot mixed-use redevelopment featuring offices, retail,
freeways and arterial streets. This employment restaurants and business-oriented hotels. In addition, there are a number
center has excellent transit service and is of new luxury apartment developments in the area that provide a variety
located along the METRO light rail transit line of housing options for workers and support continued office and retail
that connects the area to downtown Phoenix, development.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and
surrounding cities. Major Area Employers
For businesses that require convenient
air access, Phoenix Sky Harbor International CenturyLink PricewaterhouseCoopers
Telecommunications Accounting and Management Consulting
Airport is located just 15 minutes away. The Deloitte LLP Dignity Health
airport is one of the busiest in the U.S. based Accounting and Management Consulting Hospital Administration
on passenger traffic and offers more than 830 Fennemore Craig IBM Corporation
Law Firm Administrative Operations
daily non-stop ﬂights to nearly 80 domestic
SCF Arizona U-Haul International
destinations and 13 international destinations.5 Direct Property and Casuality Insurance - HQ Leasing Services - Corp. HQ
Viad Corporation Xerox Corporation
5 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2015. Business Services - HQ Copiers and Office Products
BMO Harris Bank
Banking and Financial Services

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2013

PHOENIX IS DESIGNED City of Phoenix
Community and Economic Development Department

TO WORK. Page 1111
200 W. Washington St., 20th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85003
www.phoenix.gov/econdev | 602-262-5040
From: Adam Ghiz
To: Nick Klimek
Cc: ben@witheymorris.com
Subject: Re: Z-56-20 (3rd Avenue and Coolidge)
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 12:07:07 PM

One Additional concern.

The large grassy area on the corner of 3rd and Coolidge has been used for years by the
neighborhood as a makeshift park. Families have used this area for recreation with their
children and pets. It provides for a grassy green area, in an otherwise paved jungle. You will
be taking this away from all residents, and instead of providing more greenery, will be adding
more concrete.

~Adam

On Nov 3, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Adam Ghiz wrote:

Here are my concerns for this project:

1. 56ft building height allowed by T5:5
2. 10 ft setback from current sidewalk, this in combination of the height will
basically provide for an entire block of apartments from the canal to Coolidge
looking directly over my fence and into my yard and house.
3. Noise, this is an extremely quiet section and adding an additional 218 housing
units will greatly increase the noise factor of the neighborhood.
4. Traffic. Hazelwood turns into 3rd ave and as a result, there is a very low traffic
density. Even with the the garage entry on Coolidge, traffic is going to greatly
increase on these streets and most likely all street parking with cease to exist.
5. Saturation. There are already 5 or 6 (possibly even more) high density
apartment complexes in this immediate area. Adding yet another complex will
adversely and disproportionately affect this neighborhood vs other
neighborhoods.
6. Historic district. This complex is almost surrounded on the 3rd ave and
Coolidge street sections by the Pierson Place Historic district. Constructing this
large complex when surrounded by a historic district diminishes the intention of
having a historic district. The proposed elevations are quoted as “blending in” yet
it looks like every other apartment complex built.

This project adversely affects my property disproportionately as I am on the
corner of 3rd and Hazelwood and this apartment complex will be towering over
my house, and on the entire east side of my property I will now stare at 56ft of
apartment building.

~Adam

On Nov 3, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Nick Klimek
wrote:

Page 1112
Good morning, Adam –

I apologize but I believe I failed to answer one of your primary questions,
expressed via Maura, regarding whether the property is currently
approved for development. The answer is both yes and no… please allow
me to explain.

The property is currently zoned R-5 which generally means they could
build to a height of 48 feet.

However, the applicant has elected to pursue additional zoning
entitlement under the Walkable Urban Code. The process will take 4-6
months and include 3 public hearings and a neighborhood meeting.
During this process, the site plan may change and evolve in response to
community concerns and priorities. I recommend putting your concerns in
writing and sending them over to me. I also suggest reaching out to the
applicant’s representative, Ben Tate, to express yours concerns early on.

In the coming weeks, I will be reviewing the proposal in greater detail.

Kind regards,

Nick

Nick Klimek, AICP
Village Planner
Office: 602-534-7696
E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov

Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better
Phoenix

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be
checking voicemails multiple times per day. Please feel free to leave me a
voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Adam Ghiz
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 10:45 AM
To: Nick Klimek

Page 1113
Subject: Re: Z-56-20 (3rd Avenue and Coolidge)

Thanks for the response. So I am in the house directly across from this and
will be affected greatly as most of my exposure is to the east where the
current donor network building is. This picture is what I see from most of
my house. I estimate that these trees are approximately 30ft tall and
from what I have seen, it looks like the building will be 56ft tall. Also,
correct me if I am wrong, but the building will only be setback 10 ft from
the current sidewalk?

If this is the case, how can I expect any modicum of privacy? Not to
mention, that all I will be able to see from my windows will now be
building.

How does a project this large get approved so close to a historic
residential neighborhood? It destroys any point in trying to preserve the
original feel of the neighborhood.

I am greatly distressed by this news and also would like to know if there is
an estimated time when construction will begin.

Thanks,
Adam

On Nov 3, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Nick Klimek
wrote:

Good morning, Mr. Ghiz –

My name is Nick Klimek and I am the Alhambra Village
Planner. I received your contact information from Maura
Jackson from our Historic Preservation Office. Please feel
free to send any written comments to me and I will ensure
they be provided to the applicant and included with the staff
report as the request is processed; in your email, please
reference the case number Z-56-20.

If you would like to discuss, please feel free to call me at the
below number but please note that the request is very new
so I may be light on exact details regarding the site plan.

Kind regards,

Page 1114
Nick

Nick Klimek, AICP
Village Planner
Office: 602-534-7696
E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov

Planning & Development
Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation
for a Better Phoenix

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule,
but will be checking voicemails multiple times per day.
Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me
for a more timely response. Thank you.***

Page 1115
$WWDFKPHQW&

ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
May 4, 2021

Alhambra Village Planning Committee January 26, 2021
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 4, 2021
May 6, 2021

Request From: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(0.18 acres) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) (3.11 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (3.29
acres)

Proposed Use: Multifamily Residential
Location: Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street
Owner: Donor Network of Arizona
Applicant: Trinsic Residential Group, Todd
Gosselink

Representative: Withey Morris PLC, Jason Morris

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

BACKGROUND
The original proposal requested to rezone the subject site at the southeast corner of 3rd
Avenue and Coolidge from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) to WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code Transect 5:5, Uptown
Transit Character Area) for multifamily residential.

The proposal was to redevelop the existing office property into a four-story multifamily
structure with a limited fifth floor mezzanine. Staff recommended approval of the request
subject to 13 stipulations.

On January 26, 2021, the Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard the case and
recommended approval per the staff recommendation by a 15 to 1 vote. On February 4,
2021, the Planning Commission heard the case and recommended approval per the

Page 1116
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021

Alhambra Village Planning Committee recommendation by a 7 to 1 vote with one
additional stipulation. The added stipulation was for the execution of a Proposition 207
Waiver.

After the Planning Commission Meeting, the case was continued by the City Council on
March 3rd to allow for additional communication regarding concerns. A series of
meetings were then held to discuss concerns regarding height, setbacks, number of
units, traffic, privacy, and flooding.

On April 7, 2021, Councilwoman Pastor moved that the case be remanded back to the
Planning Commission as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with conditions to address
community concerns. The motion passed unanimously and included the following
conditions for the PUD resubmittal.

1. To address all staff stipulations and the following items based on discussions
with the neighborhood.
2. To include an overall maximum building height of 48 feet, except for the
parking garage which shall be limited to 56 feet.
3. To include a minimum setback of 20 feet between the curb and the building
faces on both Coolidge Street and 3rd Avenue.
4. To restrict the maximum number of dwelling units to 210.
5. To prohibit vehicular access to 3rd Avenue.
6. To require the applicable “frontage types” be identified along 3rd Avenue.
7. To address landscape and design features in response to neighborhood
considerations on 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street.
8. To require permit parking throughout the neighborhood.

PROPOSAL

The PUD is intended to create a built environment that is superior to that produced by
conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Where the PUD Development
Narrative is silent on a requirement, the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be
applied.

Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described
in the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped April 29, 2021.
The PUD would allow the development of a five story multifamily development
Development but with notable revisions to the original request in response to community
concerns and the City Council motion.

Permitted Land Uses

The PUD utilizes the Permitted Use List found in Chapter 618 for R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) with modifications to remove specified uses for the purposes
of promoting neighborhood compatibility.

Page 1117
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021

The land uses prohibited by the PUD include the following: bed and breakfast
establishment; boarding house; group foster home; hotel or motel; environmental
remediation facility; branch offices for the following: banks, building and loan
associations, brokerage houses, savings and loan associations, finance
companies, title insurance companies and trust companies; and veterinary
offices.

Development Standards

Density: A maximum of 210 dwelling units.

Building Height: A maximum height of 48 feet along 3rd Avenue and Coolidge
Street and a maximum height of 56 feet for the parking structure. The proposed
regulation in the applicant’s narrative is not precisely aligned with the motion
which would require all buildings be limited to 48 feet with only the parking
structure being allow the 56 feet maximum. Stipulation 1.b. revises the
requirement to align with the City Council motion.

Building Setbacks: A minimum setback of 20 feet from both 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Streets, as measured between the back of curb and the building front.

Landscape Setbacks: A minimum setback of 20 feet from both 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Streets, as measured between the back of curb and the building front.

Planting Standards: The planting standards meet or exceed the requirements of
the Walkable Urban Code and the original stipulations for the all perimeters of
the subject site.

Vehicular Access: No vehicular access is permitted from 3rd Avenue.

Detached Sidewalks and Pedestrian Ways: The PUD requires the public
sidewalks be detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5 foot landscape
area that will be planted with four inch caliper (25 percent), three inch caliper (25
percent) and two inch caliper (50 percent) trees at a rate of 20 feet on center.
These standards will create 75 percent shade over the public sidewalk and meet
or exceed the requirements of the Walkable Urban Code and the original
stipulations.

Ground Level Frontage Types:
x North and West: The PUD requires that 70 percent of the ground level
building face oriented to 3rd Avenue have stoops and doorwells, patios,
and/or porches.
x South (Grand Canal Orientation): The PUD requires 20 percent of the
ground level building face oriented to the south conform to a frontage type.

Page 1118
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021

Design Guidelines

The PUD incorporates all staff stipulations detailed in the recommendations of
the Alhambra Village Planning Committee and the Planning Commission. These
stipulations pertained to open space design, planting standards, architectural
enhancements and restrictions, and required frontage types. The PUD
incorporates each of these stipulations. Additionally, the PUD prohibits balconies
to the north and west unless “juliet” style.

ANALYSIS

The current rezoning request fulfills the abovementioned City Council direction
of filing for a PUD and the associated requirements with the below modifications:

Height: The PUD Narrative proposes a maximum height of 48 feet along 3rd
Avenue and Coolidge Street compared to the motion which would restrict all
buildings to 48 feet and the parking structure to 56 feet.
x Stipulation No. 1.b revises the PUD to align with the City Council motion.

South Facing “Frontage Types” and Publicly Accessible Open Space: The
PUD Narrative proposes that 20 percent of the total building face be developed with
“frontage types” to activate the space between the building and the canal; while this
is a reduction from the original stipulation which required 40 percent, the applicant
has compensated for the change by adding publicly accessible open space along
the canal as requested through the public hearing process.

In order to ensure that the publicly accessible open space is provided, a modification
to the development narrative has been added to dictate requirements for a publicly
accessible open space, that will be landscaped and programmed with amenities.
x Stipulation No. 1.c. revises the PUD to include additional publicly accessible
open space adjacent to the canal with a depth of 25 feet for the majority of the
southern property line and programmed with amenities such as benches and
shade structures.

Permit Parking in the Neighborhood: The applicant has indicated their intent to
implement permit parking for their residents, however, this program is off-site and
therefore cannot be stipulated.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following revised stipulations:

1.* The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.

Page 1119
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021

AN UPDATED DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE FOR THE AURA
UPTOWN 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 APRIL 29, 2021, 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 8, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE, BUILDING
HEIGHT: MODIFY BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARD TO READ
AS FOLLOWS: A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 48 FEET FOR ALL
BUILDINGS EXCEPT FOR THE PARKING GARAGE WHICH
SHALL BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56 FEET.”

c. PAGE 9, LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE,
CANALSCAPE; MODIFY THE FIRST BULLET POINT TO READ
AS FOLLOWS: A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE LANDSCAPED
GREENSPACE AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO
THE ARIZONA GRAND CANAL TRAIL ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF THE PROPERTY. AT MINIMUM, THE GREEN SPACE
AREA WILL MEASURE 4,800 SQUARE FEET, 15 FEET IN
DEPTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 260 FEET, 7 FEET IN DEPTH
FOR A DISTANCE OF 70 FEET, AND SHALL BE GENERALLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IN EXHIBIT 7. A
MINIMUM OF 3 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, WHICH COULD
INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, BENCHES AND SHADE
CANOPIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE
AREA.

2. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.

3. Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 1120
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021

4. The provisions of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

5. No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible pedestrian
connections from the amenity areas located south of the building mass to the
shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge of the
site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and / or the
Grand Canal Trail. The station shall include but not limited to:
standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump;
and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin
freely while adjusting the bike.

b. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section
1307.H.6.d of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured
parking.

c. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be
provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of
50 spaces near entrances of buildings and installed per the
requirements of Section 1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

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

3. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated 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

Page 1121
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-56-20-4
May 6, 2021

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 not limited to provisions in the latest
versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for
review and approval of Floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or
CLOMR prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

4. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

5. 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.

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 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

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Sketch Map
Community Correspondence (105 pages)
Z-56-20 Aura Uptown Planned Unit Development date stamped April 29, 2021

Page 1122
(/067

67$9(
C-2 H-R*
5+3 Z-60-85
=
R-4A H-R *
Z-9-89
3 5 &
5 =
+,*+/$1'$9(

5 5
5 5'$9( 38'
= =

&22/,'*(67
5
5
5
= 72''LVWULFW &DQDOVFDSH
&
8S7RZQ
+$=(/:22'67

5
&(175$/$9(
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
&HQWUDO$YHQXH Z-175-87
'HYHORSPHQW =
6WDQGDUGV
3 7UDQVLW &
0,11(=21$$9( 2YHUOD\'LVWULFW
72'
&
5 +5
+3 5 3
1'$9(
5 +3

7+$9(
=63 = &
&$03%(//$9(

5$
=
=

I
0LOHV
= 1257+(51$9(

*/(1'$/($9(

%(7+$1<+20(5'
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
&$0(/%$&.5'
&,7<&281&,/',675,&7
5'$9( 67$9(
7+$9(
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
,

$33/,&$17 61$0( 5(48(67('&+$1*(
7ULQVLF5HVLGHQWLDO*URXS7RGG*RVVHOLQ
)520
5 DF

5 DF
'$7(
$33/,&$7,2112
= 5(9,6,21'$7(6

*5266$5($,1&/8',1*675((7
$1'$//(<'(',&$7,21,6$3352;
$(5,$/3+272 =21,1*0$3
48$57(56(&12
$FUHV 46 + 72 38' DF
08/7,3/(63(50,77(' &219(17,21$/237,21 81,7635'237,21
55
38' 1$

0D[LPXP8QLWV$OORZHGZLWK35'%RQXV
Page 1123
'RFXPHQW3DWK6?'HSDUWPHQW6KDUH?,QIRUPDWLRQ6\VWHPV?3/*,6?,6B7HDP?&RUHB)XQFWLRQV?=RQLQJ?VNHWFKBPDSV??=P[G
(/067

67$9(
C-2 H-R*
5+3 Z-60-85
=
R-4A H-R *
Z-9-89
3 5 &
5 =
+,*+/$1'$9(

5 5
5 5'$9( 38'
= =

&22/,'*(67
5
5
5
= 72''LVWULFW &DQDOVFDSH
&
8S7RZQ
+$=(/:22'67

5
&(175$/$9(
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
&HQWUDO$YHQXH Z-175-87
'HYHORSPHQW =
6WDQGDUGV
3 7UDQVLW &
0,11(=21$$9( 2YHUOD\'LVWULFW
72'
&
5 +5
+3 5 3
1'$9(
5 +3

7+$9(
=63 = &
&$03%(//$9(

5$
=
=
0DULFRSD&RXQW\$VVHVVRU V2IILFH

I
0LOHV
= 1257+(51$9(

*/(1'$/($9(

%(7+$1<+20(5'
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
&$0(/%$&.5'
&,7<&281&,/',675,&7
5'$9( 67$9(
7+$9(
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
7+ $9(
,

$33/,&$17 61$0( 5(48(67('&+$1*(
7ULQVLF5HVLGHQWLDO*URXS7RGG*RVVHOLQ
)520
5 DF

5 DF
'$7(
$33/,&$7,2112
= 5(9,6,21'$7(6

*5266$5($,1&/8',1*675((7
$1'$//(<'(',&$7,21,6$3352;
$(5,$/3+272 =21,1*0$3
48$57(56(&12
$FUHV 46 + 72 38' DF
08/7,3/(63(50,77(' &219(17,21$/237,21 81,7635'237,21
55
38' 1$

0D[LPXP8QLWV$OORZHGZLWK35'%RQXV
Page 1124
'RFXPHQW3DWK6?'HSDUWPHQW6KDUH?,QIRUPDWLRQ6\VWHPV?3/*,6?,6B7HDP?&RUHB)XQFWLRQV?=RQLQJ?VNHWFKBPDSV??=P[G
3DWE

Page 1125
Page 1126
Page 1127
Page 1128
Page 1129
Page 1130
3DWE

'B7F_&GCJGA4J6P4_0CHG4?<_)H4KK!BU\_L>_)AL=KB[_
*G4KKCK?__"_1=TU_14TADK?ULK_,UP<=U_
*AL=KD[_ 3__

+=_ XQ5_ /NVLZK_2 _

$_4J_4_P_UA<_)B=PTLK_*G47<_#BTULPC7_"BTUPC9_4K:_$_4J_CK_TXNNLS_L>_UA=_NPLNLT<:_P<^LKBK?_
L>_ _ 1_ !LLHB:?<_ ,UP==U_ >MP_ UA<_ :=Y=HLNJ=KU_ L>_ UA=_ XP4_ /NULZK_ JXHUB >4JCG\_ PNPLE=8_

XP4_ /NVLZK_BT_ 4_ 6=4XUC>XG_ Z=HH :LP_ VA=_ NPLN=[BTVBK?_JXHUC>4JBH\_^LKCK?_4:E47=KV_:%_64JBH\_ALXTBK?_4U_4_T74G=_
4K;_:=KTCU\_UA4U_BT_T=KTBUCY<_UL_UA=_TXQQLXK:BK@_K
.ABT_ DT_ UA<_ U\N=_ L>_ N<:=TVPC4K LQBLP_ UACT_
)PLN _

Page 1131
3DWE

#;1?V"@;B4?V
@:/B0J/V,;@@/94V%@/CC4JV
;NTVD6V%:D4C;SV
&A/CC;C9VV4Q4@DGB4CNV4G/JOB4CNV
V-4MNV-/M:;C9NDCV(NJ44NV
%:D4C;SV.VV

'4VPJ/V*GNDRCV. V

!V/BV/VJ4M;34CNVD6VN:4V%;4KDCV%@/14V ;MNDJ;1V;MNJ;1NV/C3V!V/BV;CVMPGGDLVD6VN:4VGJDGDM43VJ5DC;C9V
D6V V -V DD@;394V (NJ44NV 6EJV N:4V 34Q4@DGB4CNV D6V N:4V PJ/V *GNDRCV BP@N; 7B;@TV J4M;34CN;/@V
GJD<42V

PJ/V *HNDRCV;MV /V04/PN;6P@V R4@@ 34M;9C43VGJD=41NVN:/NV;MV/GGJDHJ;/N4V8JVN:4VGJDG4JOTV9;Q4CVN:4V
4S;MN;C9VBP@N; 6/B;@TVUDC;C9V/3!V04@;4Q4VN:;MVHJF>42VR;@@VGJDQ;34V/NNJ/2;Q4VR/@?/0@4V :;9: IP/@;NTVBP@N; 6/B;@TV:DPM;C9V/NV/VM1/@4V
/C3V34CM;NTVN:/NV;MVM4CM;N;Q4VNDVN:4VMPJJDPC3;C9VC4;9:0DJ:DD3MV/C3V1DBBPC;NTV

):;MV ;MV N:4V NTG4V D6V G434MNJ;/C DJ;4CN43V 34Q4@DHB4CNV 4CQ;M;DC43V 0TV N:4V +HNDRCV )$V 8JV N:;MV
%JDG4JNTV/C3V!V PJ94VN:4V;NTVDPC1;@VNDV/GGJDQ4V;NV

Page 1132
3DWE

"@;B6?X
@:0B1I0X,<@@096X$@0CC6IX
;NVXD7X$:D6C;UX
$@0CC;C9XX6R6@DGB6CNX6G0INB6CNX
X-6MNX.0M:;C9NDCX&NI66NX
$:D6C
%6XPI0X+GNDTCX/ X

!X0BX0XI6M;56CNXD7XN:6X$;6IMDCX$@026X D7X X -X DD@;596X &NJ66NX 7FIX N:6X 56R6@DGB6CNX D7X N:6X PI0X *GNDTCX BP@N; 70B;@VX I6M;56CN;0@X
GID=62OX

PI0X +GNDTCX;MX0X 160PN;7P@X T6@@ 56M<9C65XGIE>64XN:0NX ;MX 0GGIDGI;0N6X7DIX N:6XGIDG6LVX96U026CNX56S6@DGB6CNX0C5XG@026B6CNXT!X16@;6S6XN:0C5X56CM
(:;MX $IDG6INVX0C5X!XPI96XN:6X

&;C26I6AVX

Page 1133
3DWE

Nick Klimek
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Aura Uptown / Z-56-20-4

I am a resident of the Pierson Place Historic Neighborhood, and I am writing to express my
support for particular aspects of the proposed rezoning of 201 W. Coolidge Street for the
development of the Aura Uptown multi-family residential project.

Though the height already zoned on this property is a bit out of step with the adjacent housing
to the west, a multifamily development is in line with developments east of the site, and its
proximity to strong pedestrian, bike, and transit connections makes me optimistic that access for
new residents will be multimodal, and not solely auto-oriented.

The proposed project has done a good job orienting toward the canal and maintaining 3rd Ave
as a bike and pedestrian space. I appreciate that the project restricts automobile access off 3rd
Ave. I also encourage the consideration of a traffic circle or other traffic calming device at
Coolidge and 3rd Avenue. My family, including my 3 year-old and 5 year-old, often walk or bike
to/from the canal along 3rd Ave, as do many other neighbors and the general population that
utilizes the 3rd Ave bike/ped corridor. Because Coolidge connects between Central and 7th Ave,
cars using it as a cut through or simply speeding due to the long straight stretch often miss the
stop sign at 3rd Ave, creating a dangerous situation for people (and especially children) walking
and biking along 3rd Ave. I imagine the increased traffic on Coolidge due to this project will only
exacerbate an already unsafe situation at that intersection. Whether this treatment could be
considered as part of the upcoming city-planned 3rd Ave bike improvements for this area or
included in this development, or shared by both, the quickest way to implement that safety
measure would be encouraged by many in our neighborhood. Certainly it should be scheduled
for completion prior to the opening of this development.

The loss of the existing mature shade trees is disappointing. If there is any way to preserve or
relocate any of those trees, it should be attempted. However, I do appreciate the proposed shade
trees along all walkways and the ground floor patios that add visual interest and a break in the
walls. As another neighbor suggested, I would encourage confirmation that tall shade trees have
enough space to grow in the available landscaping space to provide adequate shade across
walkways.

I am sad to lose the big existing green space but I appreciate that the applicant has gone beyond
the minimum requirements for public space. Building management is going to have to work hard
to maintain all sidewalks and green spaces, but the applicant has provided a nice space along
the canal for dogs and people that will be very popular with the neighborhood.

Sincerely,

Gina Thomas
102 W Elm St, Phoenix AZ 85013

Page 1134
3DWE

1LFN.OLPHN
$OKDPEUD9LOODJH3ODQQHU
&LW\RI3KRHQL[
3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
:HVW:DVKLQJWRQ6WUHHW
3KRHQL[$=
QLFNNOLPHN#SKRHQL[JRY

Sent via electronic mail

5H$XUD8SWRZQ=

,DPDUHVLGHQWRIWKH&DUQDWLRQQHLJKERUKRRGOLYHDORQJUG$YHQXHMXVWVRXWKRIWKH*UDQG
&DQDO DQG , DP LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH SURSRVHG UH]RQLQJ RI : &RROLGJH 6WUHHW IRU WKH
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKH$XUD8SWRZQPXOWLIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFW

:HQHHGPRUHKRXVLQJLQ0LGWRZQ8SWRZQ3KRHQL[HVSHFLDOO\KRXVLQJWKDWEULQJVLQUHVLGHQWV
ZKR ZLOO XVH SXEOLFWUDQVLW DQG VXSSRUW RXU ORFDOEXVLQHVVHV $XUD 8SWRZQ LV D ZHOOGHVLJQHG
SURMHFW WKDW LV DSSURSULDWH IRU RXU DUHD JLYHQ WKH H[LVWLQJ PXOWLIDPLO\ ]RQLQJ DGMDFHQW
GHYHORSPHQW DQG SODFHPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH 8SWRZQ 7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG 'HVLJQ 3ODQ , EHOLHYH WKLV
SURMHFWZLOOSURYLGHDWWUDFWLYHZDONDEOHKLJKTXDOLW\PXOWLIDPLO\KRXVLQJDWDVFDOHDQGGHQVLW\
WKDWLVVHQVLWLYHWRWKHVXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGFRPPXQLW\,DOVRUHDOO\DSSUHFLDWHWKH
ELF\FOHIRFXVHGDPHQLWLHVUHTXLUHGE\WKHVWLSXODWLRQV,DPFRQFHUQHGWKDWLIWKLVGHYHORSPHQW
GRHVQRWKDSSHQHGZLWKWKHLQFOXGHGVWLSXODWLRQVWKDWDQRWKHUGHYHORSPHQWZLOOMXVWFRPHLQ
ZLWKRXW WKH UHTXLUHG VWLSXODWLRQV WR LPSURYH WKH FDQDOVFDSH DQG WKDW LV OHVV WUDQVLW DQG ELNH
RULHQWHG

7KHSURSRVHGFDQDOVFDSHLPSURYHPHQWVDQGDPHQLWLHVZLOOSURYLGHDQHQRUPRXVEHQHILWWRWKH
FRPPXQLW\7KLVLVWKHW\SHRISHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHRULHQWHGGHYHORSPHQWHQYLVLRQHGE\WKH
8SWRZQ7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG'HVLJQ3ODQDQG,XUJHWKH&LW\&RXQFLOWRDSSURYHLW

6LQFHUHO\

(G+HUPHV
:0RQWHFLWR$YH3KRHQL[

Page 1135
Page 1136
Page 1137
Page 1138
Page 1139
Page 1140
Page 1141
Page 1142
Page 1143
Page 1144
Page 1145
Page 1146
Page 1147
Page 1148
Page 1149
Page 1150
Page 1151
Page 1152
Page 1153
Page 1154
Page 1155
Page 1156
Page 1157
Page 1158
Page 1159
Page 1160
Page 1161
Page 1162
Page 1163
Page 1164
Page 1165
Page 1166
Page 1167
Page 1168
Page 1169
Page 1170
Page 1171
Page 1172
Page 1173
Page 1174
Page 1175
Page 1176
Racelle Escolar

From: Lina Money
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:37 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; PDD Planning Commission
Subject: In opposition / z-56-20-4

Dear members of the planning commission,

As of this morning at 11am May 6th, members of the opposition still have not seen the new site plans. We have asked for
a continuance and we are surprised it has not been granted as of yet seeing how we are expected to take a stance at
tonight’s meeting. The PUD was remanded from City Council skipping normal steps (including Alhambra) which would
have allowed us to have ample time to review the new site plans and documents. We have not asked for a single
continuance up to this point.

We are hoping the PUD can work as it has the potential to benefit everyone including the city’s vision of the Grand Canal-
scape. As the PUD stands, it does not work for the neighborhood. It is still very close to the WU T5:5 in density, vehicles,
units, height of the parking garage, and lack of appropriate parking spaces.

Trinsic has gained 45 units from the R3/R5. They have gone from 218 to 210 with 165 being the maximum are R5 would
allow. That is not a compromise. They have gained a 56 foot parking structure but they have REDUCED the number of
parking spots since the City Council Meeting from 303 to 292. At 266 beds (210 units), that leaves 26 parking spots for
couples and guests. That is unacceptable as this development is deep within our neighborhood. We agreed to 20 foot
setbacks with the understanding we were gaining 8 to 10 feet in setbacks (north and west sides) from the previous
rendering but this does not look to be the case based on a graphic that was sent to us a day ago. We need to see those
site plans.

If you have not received ample letters of opposition, it is because we were trying to work with the PUD but at this point
Trinsic is content with what they have and will not further reduce their density. The Dwelling Unit Density maximum for an
R5 with bonuses is 52.20. Currently Trinsic is at a dwelling urban density of 63.63. In order for the Dwelling Urban
Density to be at the maximum R5 with bonuses, Trinsic would have to bring their unit count down to 173.

210 units / 3.3 gross acres = 63.63 dwelling unit density
174 units / 3.3 gross acres = 52.72 dwelling urban density

We are open to working with this PUD as we do believe it could benefit all parties involved, but as of right now it hurts the
neighborhood and we are forced to look back at the R3/R5. If we could get further concessions on unit counts/ parking
spots in the PUD we could come back to the table. Without seeing a site plan, you are allowing us to go into this blind.

Please give us our continuance,

Vincent Bachelot

Page11177
Racelle Escolar

From: R S
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:39 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Please submit to planning commission

Dear members of the planning commission,

As of this morning at 11am May 6th, members of the opposition still have not seen the new site plans. We have asked for
a continuance and we are surprised it has not been granted as of yet seeing how we are expected to take a stance at
tonight’s meeting. The PUD was remanded from City Council skipping normal steps (including Alhambra) which would
have allowed us to have ample time to review the new site plans and documents. We have not asked for a single
continuance up to this point.

We are hoping the PUD can work as it has the potential to benefit everyone including the city’s vision of the Grand Canal-
scape. As the PUD stands, it does not work for the neighborhood. It is still very close to the WU T5:5 in density, vehicles,
units, height of the parking garage, and lack of appropriate parking spaces.

Trinsic has gained 45 units from the R3/R5. They have gone from 218 to 210 with 165 being the maximum are R5 would
allow. That is not a compromise. They have gained a 56 foot parking structure but they have REDUCED the number of
parking spots since the City Council Meeting from 303 to 292. At 266 beds (210 units), that leaves 26 parking spots for
couples and guests. That is unacceptable as this development is deep within our neighborhood. We agreed to 20 foot
setbacks with the understanding we were gaining 8 to 10 feet in setbacks (north and west sides) from the previous
rendering but this does not look to be the case based on a graphic that was sent to us a day ago. We need to see those
site plans.

If you have not received ample letters of opposition, it is because we were trying to work with the PUD but at this point
Trinsic is content with what they have and will not further reduce their density. The Dwelling Unit Density maximum for an
R5 with bonuses is 52.20. Currently Trinsic is at a dwelling urban density of 63.63. In order for the Dwelling Urban
Density to be at the maximum R5 with bonuses, Trinsic would have to bring their unit count down to 173.

210 units / 3.3 gross acres = 63.63 dwelling unit density
174 units / 3.3 gross acres = 52.72 dwelling urban density

We are open to working with this PUD as we do believe it could benefit all parties involved, but as of right now it hurts the
neighborhood and we are forced to look back at the R3/R5. If we could get further concessions on unit counts/ parking
spots in the PUD we could come back to the table. Without seeing a site plan, you are allowing us to go into this blind.

Please give us our continuance,

Ron Szematowicz

Page11178
Racelle Escolar

From: Lina Money
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:32 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; PDD Planning Commission
Subject: In opposition / z-56-20-4

DearCommissioners,

The proposal before you today purports to be an acceptable compromise brokered between
communityoppositionandTrinsicResidentialGroup.

Thereality,however,istothecontrary.Asof10:30AMthismorning,oppositionhasyettoreceive
a revised site plan detailing the proposed development. We are also yet to hear back from the
StreetsTransportationDepartmentregardingthetrafficstudysubmittedbythedeveloper.

These procedural failures take backseat, however, to the fundamental shortcomings of this
settlementproposal.

Setbacksarestillinsufficienttoobtainoutrightneighborhoodsupport.Setbacksmustbe
I.
contiguouswithsurroundingdevelopments,viz.Ǧ30’onNorthside.Theofferof20’onthe
West is much appreciated. The additional 10’ along the North side will preserve the
surrounding setbacks and guarantee visibility for pedestrians, bikes and drivers at the
intersectionof3rdAveandCoolidge.
*Itshouldbenotedthatrenderingsthatwerereceivedmyamemberoftheoppositionthis
week showing the buildings redesigndo notappear to include the 20’ as proposed by the
developer.

II. TheNumber of Unitsmust be further reduced to prevent overǦdensification congestion
and vehicular traffic. R5 allows for 165 units; TRG seeks 210 units; the neighborhood
believesaunitcountof180Ǧ90unitsismoreappropriateinthissettingandisameaningful
increaseaboveR5entitlements.

III. TheNumberofParkingSlipsremainsinsufficienttoguaranteethatsurroundingproperty
ownersnotincurinjurytotheirpropertyenjoymentandqualityoflife.Parkingisofcourse,
afunctionofthenumberofunitsproposed.

IV. TheParkingStructureisUnacceptableasitcreatesblighttosurroundingneighbors.The
parking structure must needs be the same height as the residential structure (48’).
Additionally, stipulations must be included which prohibit the possibility of roofǦtop
parking or the installation of lighting assemblies atop the parking structure. This is to
prevent light pollution and preserve the aesthetic integrity for members of the public
utilizingthecanalscapeforrecreation.

V. Thefailuretoarriveatanacceptablearrangementcomesasagreatdisappointmenttothe
neighborhood. A PUD, if created according to the process stipulated by the PUD manual,
guarantees the community multiple, faceǦtoǦface meetings with the developer to broker

Page11179
concessioninanorderlyandmeaningfulway.Wemetwiththedeveloperinadarkparking
lot the night before the city council meeting in a most unorthodox and surely exǦparte
fashionthatleftmeilltomystomach.Thiscannotbeallowedtobecomeapermissibleway
bywhichthecityallowscontroversialdevelopmentcasestoberesolved.IfPPDbelievesthat
aPUDistheappropriatevehicletobrokerasettlement,thenthePUDmustgothroughthe
normal,prescribedPUDprocess.

Becausewhatyouseebeforeyoutodayisnotacceptabletoopposition,beitknownthat
oppositionhassubmittedarequestforcontinuance.Webelievethatarrivingatanacceptable
compromiseisstillpossibleandwouldlikethecommissiontosupporttheneighborhoodin
bringingTRGtothetableinameaningfulway.IfthisisdeniedandthePUDissubsequently
recommendedtotheCityCouncilwithouttheinclusionofstipulationsamelioratingtheabove
referencedconcerns,oppositionintendstofurtherappeal.

Withrespect,

LinaMoney

Page21180
TO: PPD FROM: DILLON HALL THURSDAY, MAY 6TH, 2021

Dear Commissioners,

The proposal before you today purports to be an acceptable compromise brokered between community
opposition and Trinsic Residential Group.

The reality, however, is to the contrary. As of 10:30AM this morning, opposition has yet to receive a
revised site plan detailing the proposed development. We are also yet to hear back from the Streets
Transportation Department regarding the traffic study submitted by the developer.

These procedural failures take backseat, however, to the fundamental shortcomings of this settlement
proposal.

I. Setbacks are still insufficient to obtain outright neighborhood support. Set backs must be contiguous
with surrounding developments, viz.- 30’ on North side. The offer of 20’ on the West is much
appreciated. The additional 10’ along the North side will preserve the surrounding setbacks and
guarantee visibility for pedestrians, bikes and drivers at the intersection of 3rd Ave and Coolidge.
*It should be noted that renderings that were received my a member of the opposition this week showing the buildings
redesign do not appear to include the 20’ as proposed by the developer.

II. The Number of Units must be further reduced to prevent over-densification congestion and vehicular
traffic. R5 allows for 165 units; TRG seeks 210 units; the neighborhood believes a unit count of
180-90 units is more appropriate in this setting and is a meaningful increase above R5 entitlements.

III. The Number of Parking Slipsremains insufficient to guarantee that surrounding property owners not
incur injury to their property enjoyment and quality of life. Parking is of course, a function of the
number of units proposed.

IV. The Parking Structure is Unacceptable as it creates blight to surrounding neighbors. The parking
structure must needs be the same height as the residential structure (48’). Additionally, stipulations
must be included which prohibit the possibility of roof-top parking or the installation of lighting
assemblies atop the parking structure. This is to prevent light pollution and preserve the aesthetic
integrity for members of the public utilizing the canalscape for recreation.

V. The failure to arrive at an acceptable arrangement comes as a great disappointment to the
neighborhood. A PUD, if created according to the process stipulated by the PUD manual, guarantees
the community multiple, face-to-face meetings with the developer to broker concession in an orderly
and meaningful way. We met with the developer in a dark parking lot the night before the city council
meeting in a most unorthodox and surely ex-parte fashion that left me ill to my stomach. This can not
be allowed to become a permissible way by which the city allows controversial development cases to
be resolved. If PPD believes that a PUD is the appropriate vehicle to broker a settlement, then the
PUD must go through the normal, prescribed PUD process.

Because what you see before you today is not acceptable to opposition, be it known that opposition has
submitted a requested for continuance. We believe that arriving at an acceptable compromise is still
possible and would like the commission to support the neighborhood in bringing TRG to the table in a
meaningful way. If this is denied and the PUD is subsequently recommended to the City Council without
the inclusion of stipulations ameliorating the above referenced concerns, opposition intends to further
appeal.

Respectfully,

Dillon Hall
324 W. Minnezona Ave.
PHX, AZ 85013

Page 1181
Rcvd.5/5/2021
Towhomitmayconcern,

We,theneighborhood,requestacontinuanceforcase56Ͳ20Ͳ4togoontothenextplanning
commissionmeeting.

Vitalinformationhasnotbeenreceivedorithasnotbeenreceivedwithsufficienttimeto
review.WereceivedimagesfromMr.Gosselinktoday5Ͳ4astotheredesignhoweveritdoes
notlooklikeitincorporatedthe20footsetbacks.Weneedtoseetheofficialnewsiteplan
whichwehavenotseenyet.Additionallywealsohavenotreceivedaconfirmationwhether
thetrafficstudysubmittedonApril8thwasapprovedordeniedbythestreettransportation
department.

ThishasbeenremandedfromCityCouncilanddidnotgothroughthenormalPUDprocess
includingtheAlhambracommittee.Becauseofthis,wedidnothavetheusualopportunityto
reviewsiteplansanddocuments.Wehavenotaskedforasinglecontinuanceuptothispoint.
Wefeelitistheutmostimportancetodosoasit’sacriticaltime.

Thankyou

Sincerely
RonSzematowicz

Page 1182
Racelle Escolar

From: Kenny W
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:07 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Please Forward to all 9 Planning Commissioners re Agenda Item #15 (May 6th)

Re:AgendaItem#15"AuraUptown"(DonorNetwork3.29GrossAcreSite)
May6th,Thursday6pmVIRTUALWebexPlanningCommMeeting
PiersonPlaceHistoricDistrict
2Videosegments
1AerialPhoto
Park:0.44Acre
OldGrowthTrees:(25alongstreets&canal)

HiRacelle,

Canyoupleaseforwardthisemailasapwithitstworelevantvideolinks(toall9PlanningCommissioners)ofChannel3
News'"PhoenixCommunityFightstoKeepNeighborhoodPark"coverageretheproposedAuraUptownproject@SEC
of3rdAve&Coolidge,
...alongwiththevideolinkofCityCouncil's92Ͳminutehearingofthiscasethatproduced43minutesofstrong
neighborhoodoppositioncomments,with21neighborsspeakingagainstͲjustatipoftheiceberg.

DonorNetworkofficewasa.44acreparkandMͲF9Ͳ5greatestneighborEVER.

ThePiersonPlaceneighborhoodreallydidn'tawakentothislossofpark&neighborͲtobereplacedbyyetanother
"aggregating"compounding24/7trafficnightmarecomingintothedeepinteriorofourneighborhood(NOarterial
streets)tillAFTERthePlanningCommissionvotedonit.TheCityCouncilfoundthatneighborhood"awakening"outthe
hardwayͲ92minutesworth.Thus,it'sbackforhopefullymuchdifferentPCreconsiderationand2ndthoughts...this
timearound.

Thankyou!

KenWaters
PiersonPlace,27Ͳyrresident

Channel3Newsclip(97secondsegment)thatairedMarch2,2021:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHI0aGl7Fk[youtube.com]

April7thCityCouncilHearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaTwv7GpIi4&t=12254s[youtube.com]
(Agendaitem#114,AuraUptownprojectthatlasted1hr,32mins):

AgendaItemStartedatthe3:02:05mark
PublicCommentsstartedatthe3:23:40mark
PublicCommentsendedatthe4:11:00mark
ItemEndedatthe4:34:00mark
92Minutestotal

Page11183
title="YouTubevideoplayer"frameborder="0"allow="accelerometer;autoplay;clipboardͲwrite;encryptedͲmedia;
gyroscope;pictureͲinͲpicture"allowfullscreen>

Page21184
ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲForwardedmessageͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ
From:DIANELMIHALSKY
Date:Sun,Feb28,2021at5:42PM
Subject:ZͲ56Ͳ20Ͳ4
To:council.district.4@phoenix.gov
Cc:mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov,council.district.1@phoenix.gov
,council.district.2@phoenix.gov,
council.district.3@phoenix.gov,council.district.5@phoenix.gov
,council.district.6@phoenix.gov,
council.district.7@phoenix.gov,council.district.8@phoenix.gov

CouncilpersonPastor:

0\QDPHLV'LDQH0LKDOVN\,OLYHDW:&DPSEHOO$YHLQWKHPLGWRZQ3KRHQL[,ERXJKWP\KRXVHLQDQGKDYHOLYHGKHUHVLQFHWKDWWLPH

)RUVHYHUDO\HDUV,VDWRQWKH(QFDQWR9LOODJH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHH7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWRQ
WKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI1UG$YHDQG:&RROLGJH6W=LVWKHILUVWSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
LQWKHQHLJKERUKRRGWKDW,KDYHHYHURSSRVHG

7KHVLWHLVORFDWHGDORQJWKH*UDQG&DQDORQWKHVRXWKDQGWKH6RQRUDQELNHZD\RQWKHZHVWLQWKH
PLGGOHRIWZRLUULJDWHGKLVWRULFQHLJKERUKRRGV7KLVLVDUHODWLYHO\VPDOOVLWHEHWZHHQDFUHV
VDOHDGYHUWLVHPHQW DFUHV &RXQW\$VVHVVRU¶VZHEVLWH DQGDFUHV 7ULQVLF¶VVXEPLVVLRQWR
&LW\VWDII ,WSUHVHQWO\KDVDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\¶ZLGHUHWHQWLRQEDVLQDORQJWKHELNHZD\ZLWKDURZRI
PDWXUHROLYHWUHHV1HLJKERUVPHHWHDFKRWKHUDQGZDONZLWKWKHLUFKLOGUHQDQGGRJVLQWKH
VKDGHGJUHHQDUHDRQWKLVXQLTXHSURSHUW\

$FFRUGLQJWRWKHVWDIIUHSRUW7ULQVLFSODQVWREXLOGDXQLWVWRU\ZLWKPH]]DQLQH³OX[XU\
DSDUWPHQW´ZLWKRQO\¶VHWEDFNVRQZKLFKLWKDVSURPLVHGWRSODQW´FDOLSHUVKDGHWUHHV¶RQ
FHQWHUEHWZHHQWKHPLQLPXP¶ZLGHVLGHZDONDQGEXLOGLQJ%DVHGRQRYHU\HDUVJDUGHQLQJRQDQ
LUULJDWHGORWWKHVHWUHHVZLOOQHYHUSURYLGHWKHFRROQHVVDQGVKDGHWKDWWKHROLYHWUHHVSURYLGHLIWKH\
VXUYLYHDWDOOLQWKHLQFUHDVHGKHDWLVODQGWKDWWKLVSURMHFWZLOOFDXVH

%HFDXVHWKHSDUFHOLVRQDIORRGKD]DUGDUHDRQWKHQRUWKVLGHRI*UDQG&DQDO7ULQVLFKDVSURPLVHG
WRVKRZWKDWLWKDVFRPSOLHGZLWK)(0$UHJXODWLRQVWRSURWHFWWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWQRW
VXUURXQGLQJVWUHHWVRUSURSHUWLHV$OWKRXJKWKHUHZDVVRPHPHQWLRQDWWKH$OKDPEUD9LOODJH
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHHPHHWLQJWKDWWKH&LW\HQJLQHHUFRQVLGHUHG7ULQVLF¶VUHPRYDORIWKHUHWHQWLRQ
EDVLQRQQHLJKERULQJVWUHHWVDQGSURSHUWLHVQRUHSRUWLVPHQWLRQHGLQWKHVWDIIUHSRUW:HGRQ¶WNQRZ
ZKHWKHUWKH&LW\FRQVLGHUHGWKHLPSDFWRIWKHNLQGRI\HDUUDLQRUIORRGWKDWKDVEHHQEHFRPH
PRUHFRPPRQLQ3KRHQL[

7KHVWDIIUHSRUWGRHVQRWPHQWLRQWKDW7ULQVLFZLOOWDNHDQ\PHDVXUHVWRPLWLJDWHWKHLQFUHDVHGWUDIILF
DQGSDUNLQJWKDWWKLVSURMHFWZLOOFDXVHRQQDUURZVWUHHWVLQWKHPLGGOHRIDUHVLGHQWLDO
QHLJKERUKRRG7ULQVLFKDVVXJJHVWHGWKDWLISDUNLQJEHFRPHVDSUREOHPLWPLJKWUHTXLUHSHUPLWVIRU

Page11185
WKHVRXWKVLGHRI&RROLGJHLQIURQWRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWEXWQRWDFURVVWKHVWUHHWZKHUHVLQJOHIDPLO\
KRPHVDUHORFDWHG7KHRQO\FRQFHVVLRQWKDW7ULQVLFKDVPDGHWRWKHVLWHRIWKHSODQRQWKHFDQDO
UHTXLUHVVKDGHGRSHQVSDFHDQGLQVWDOODWLRQRIELF\FOHSDUNLQJIRUUHVLGHQWVDQGJXHVWVDQGDSXEOLFO\
DFFHVVLEOHELF\FOHUHSDLUVWDWLRQVXEMHFWWR653¶VDSSURYDORIWKHVHXVHVRILWVULJKWRIZD\1RWRQO\
LV7ULQVLFQRWXVLQJLWVRZQSURSHUW\IRUWKHVHIHDWXUHVWKDWLWEUDJVZLOOEULQJDVLJQLILFDQWEHQHILWWRWKH
&LW\EXWLWKDVQRWERWKHUHGWRDVFHUWDLQZKHWKHULWFDQDFWXDOO\FRQVWUXFWWKHVHLPSURYHPHQWV

7KHSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQWLVDFRRNLHFXWWHUUHSOLFDWLRQRIWKHQXPHURXVPLGULVHEORFNVWKDWVHHPWR
KDYHVSURXWHGRQODUJHSDUFHOVRQWKHDUWHULDOVWUHHWVVXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGV7KHVHGHQVHPLG
ULVHGHYHORSPHQWVDUHDSSURSULDWHIRUODUJHSDUFHOVRQDUWHULDOVWUHHWVRQWKHHGJHRIH[LVWLQJ
QHLJKERUKRRGVQRWWKLVVPDOOXQLTXHSURSHUW\ORFDWHGEHWZHHQWZRWKULYLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\
QHLJKERUKRRGV

,VXSSRUWWKH&LW\¶VJRDORIDFKLHYLQJPRUHGHQVLW\LQP\PLGWRZQQHLJKERUKRRG%XW,RSSRVHWKLV
LOOFRQFHLYHGWKLUGUDWHSURMHFWEHFDXVH,WKLQNWKH&LW\FDQGREHWWHUE\WKHUHVLGHQWVZKRKDYH
KHOSHGPDNHWKLVDUHDVRGHVLUDEOH,IWKH&LW\DSSURYHV7ULQVLF¶VSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWRQWKLV
VPDOOXQLTXHSDUFHOLWZLOOSODFHDGHYHORSHU¶VVKRUWWHUPSURILWVRYHUORQJWHUPYDOXHIRUWKH&LW\DQG
LWVORQJWHUPUHVLGHQWV,EHJ\RXWRXVH\RXUVRXQGGLVFUHWLRQWRGHQ\LQJWKH]RQLQJFKDQJHVWKDW
7ULQVLFUHTXHVWV

DianeMihalsky

cc:MayorGallegoandCouncilpersonsWilliams,Waring,Stark,Guardado,DiCiccio,Nowakowski,andGarcia

Page21186
Dear Councilperson Pastor,

I am a resident & property owner in Yaple Park Historic Neighborhood, and I write to

express my strongest disapproval of Rezoning Case No: Z-56-20-4.

Z-56-20-4 seeks to permit the construction of a 4 + story mid-rise on the Southeast corner

of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street in Midtown Phoenix (the former offices of the Donor

Network of AZ at 201 W. Coolidge). The complex will have a minimum of 218 units (275 beds),

will be set a mere 10 feet back from the street, and effectively will blanket the entire 2.6

acre parcel with a 60 foot structure that will tower over existing homes in every direction.

That the proposed development will damage the surrounding area is the widely-held and

affirmed belief of surrounding homeowners, residents, and private businesses.

I have joined the more than one hundred property owners and residents of the surrounding

neighborhoods in signing petitions against Z-56-20-4 to make clear our opposition to the

proposed changes. These are families and futures belonging to your constituents—of which

I am only one—and I respectfully implore you to consider voting against the rezoning

request.

The Alhambra Village Planning Committee and City of Phoenix Planning Committee have

both voted in favor of this zoning change, thus allowing for the proposed development to

proceed. Present at both meetings, however, were a large contingent of community members

—all of whom stood in opposition—and all of whom were prevented from meaningful

participation in either public process.

Page 1187
These proceedings were contrary to our democratic principles, and were most especially

egregious as we made repeated attempts to voice our concerns and were given no reasonable

accommodation. The truth is that the surrounding residents are the individuals who will

suffer irreversible life changes, and so ought to have been guaranteed a meaningfulrole in

the decision making process. The process, thus far, has not afforded any role to them.

Like many of my neighbors, I am concerned that the proposed building will diminish

property values within the two adjacent historic neighborhoods1 and will create an unsafe

and dangerous traffic environment in an area in which ingress and egress are already

highly restricted. This is compounded by the fact that there will be insufficient parking to

accommodate the total number of residents, guests and service providers to the building. The

surrounding infrastructure of the neighborhood is not such that it can accommodate an

expected increase to vehicular activity without systemic improvements such as sidewalks—

none of which are part of the proposed development.

Congestion is further compounded by the fact that Pierson Place is bordered on two sides

by the Light Rail and on a third by the Grand Canal, leaving residents (1) No interior South-

Bound Exits, (2) a single Northern exit at Camelback and 3rd Avenue, and (3) a single Eastern

exit at the light on Highland and Central Avenue to head North. This last intersection is

already utilized by, as a necessity, the more than 3,500 students attending St. Francis Xavier

School, Brophy College Preparatory, Xavier College Preparatory and the clergy of the Parish

grounds2.

1 Yaple Park, which is 108 residences 103 of which are single-family-homes & Pierson Place, which is composed of more than 150 residences, 85%

of which are single-family-homes.

2 coming and going both at peak traﬃc hours and throughout the day.

Page 1188
Many neighbors have expressed their concerns as ADA residents and as parents of young

children who will now be forced to compete with car traffic on the surface streets. Our

neighborhoods have very, very few sidewalks and we fear losing our pedestrian culture to

densification. Our ability to park in front of our own homes will also be compromised. The

stress on existing utilities is an additional concern, as this is a neighborhood built up in the

early 1930’s then again in the post-war 40’s-60’s.

Our sewer lines have been failing for a decade and effectively doubling demand on them

immediately will likely greatly accelerate the failure of this system—which is now at the end of

its projected life cycle, according to the city’s own data. This is yet another major cost to be

born by existing property owners and is a financial burden that gives sole accommodation to

the development in-question. If the City approves the development, it will shift the cost of

supporting the development onto existing individual property owners.

Arguably just as important is our belief that this development will decrease our property

enjoyment, stifle our historical identity, and gravely undermine the independence of our

community to influence—much less chart—our own futures.

Forcing this drastic and arguably inappropriate development upon existing property owners

will cause general injury to our financial positions and social fabric. Of specific concern are

traffic/parking hazards, the degree of density relative to surrounding properties and—frankly

—the aesthetically vacuous character of the proposed building. This area and this site in

particular deserves something better and ought to be developed in such a way as to amplify

the special nature of the surrounding historic neighborhoods.

Page 1189
This is a large development smack-dab in the middle of two traditional, working-class

residential neighborhoods that are on their way up. This development brings our community

nothing of tangible value and, in fact, seriously undermines our expectation as property

owners to continue along an upward trajectory that has proven to be an asset to the city, and

will rationally be expected to continue. This development should be curtailed to benefit and

preserve the greater midtown area in the short-term, mid-term and long-term futures as

sought-after historic residential areas.

Put frankly, this development will transfer the hard-earned wealth generated by individual

homeowners and families toa Wall Street Corporation. This is not a case of xenophobia or of

anti-progressivism; this is a case of decades of hard working, mortgage paying and free-

holding individuals and families who have struggled to ensure that these communities would

not only survive but would flourish seeking to preserve what we have built. Now we are trying

to avoid collision with a powerful single interest, the impact of which we will likely not survive

—at least not recognizably—at the onset of our real prosperity.

I could go on and on, but I think I've expressed enough of your constituents' feelings in this

matter to inform you of our committed sentiment that this development should not go ahead.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please keep up the good work, Councilperson

Pastor!

Sincerely,

Dillon Hall
324 West Minnezona
Phoenix, Arizona, 85013
Dillon.Hall.MTAZ@gmail.com
602.758.2241

Page 1190
ZĐǀĚϯͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϭ

TheUrbanWalkableCodeisinappropriateforthesiteat3rdAve&CoolidgeSt.Thissiteisaway
fromallarterialroadsandisintheheartofahistoricneighborhoodthatiscutofftothesouth
bythecanal,haslimitedaccesstotheeastandthenorthbecauseofthelightrail,andcontends
withsuicidelaneson7thAvetothewest.Addingthismuchtrafficalongthe3rdAvebikepath
andwithinthisneighborhoodisbadforsafetyandoverallcitydevelopment.Thisdevelopment
inthisareaisinconsistentwiththeverypremiseofawalkablecode.

TrinsicDevelopmentgrouphasappliedforazoningchangefromahistoricR3/R5toaWUT5:5
whichisthesamezoningastheNWcornerofIndianSchoolandCentralAve.

AT5:5ischaracterizedby“abroadmixofbuildingsthatintegrateretail,offices,liveͲworkand
residential”.1Theyaveragein56to100feetinheight.Thereisnothingclosetothisheightany
wherenearthisdevelopmentorwithinthehistoricneighborhood,awayfromarterialroads.
Themajorityofthebuildingsinthesurroundingareaaresinglefamilyhomesonasinglefloor
andsometwostoryresidentialbuildings.TheaverageheightintheareaisLESSthan30feet,
somewherebetweenoneandtwostoryresidential.

AT5:2andT5:3isthenextstepdownandwestillarenotanywherenearitscharacterization.
“AlowintensitymixedusefabriccharacterizedbyaSMALLMAINSTREETSCALECOMMERCIAL
AREAS,adaptivereuseofsingleͲfamilyhomestoretail,officeusesanddiningestablishments
andmixeduseresidentialdevelopmentsincorporatingaBROADmixoffrontagetypes
averaging30to48feetinheight.”2Allthe“mainstreetcommercial”streetsarearterialroads.
3RdAveiscompletelyresidentialandwehavenoretailordiningawayfromarterialroads.
Againwearebetweenoneandtwostorieswiththemajorityoftheareaahistoriconestory
neighborhood.Wearewellbelowtheaverageheightof30Ͳ48’.

EventheT4:2andT4:3discussanaverageof30Ͳ40feetinheight.Wedonothaveclosetothis
averageeither.

Ihavebeenthroughmuchofthe“VisonandMasterPlan”Uptownsectioncitypamphletthat
Trinsichasusedtotoutthiszoningchangetoplanningcommissionsandtheneighborhoodand
itclearlystates“Theplanservesasaguideandisnotregulatory.Additionaloutreachand
researchonunderlyingentitlementsandappropriatenessofspecificpropertieswillbe
conductedduringtherezoningprocess3”(page77uptownsection).Ihavefoundplentyof
mapswithinthispamphletthatshowthispropertyoutsidetheappropriatenessofaWUcode
zone.

https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/1302
https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/1302
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/ReinventPHX%20UPTOWN%20TOD%20Policy%20Plan%2011X1
7.pdfpage77

Page 1191

ScreenshotfromCityofPhoenixmunicipalcodessection1302.

Page 1192
ScreenshotfromCityofPhoenixwebsiteUrbanWalkableCodeHandout

Note:ThepropertyinquestionisNOTpartoftheurbanwalkablecode.Thesearenot
supposedtobetakenverbatim.

Page 1193
AT5:5isthetypeofzoningthatTWOarterialroadsjustreceivedontheNorthwestcornerof
IndianSchoolandCentralAve.

WUT5:5IndianSchoolandCentralAve

WeareRESIDENTIAL.AlookatbusinessesviaGooglemaps.Notetheyareallwithinonehouse
ofarterialroads.NodiningnoretailawayfromCentralor7thAve.3RdAveisstrictlyresidential.
Googlemapsshowsnobusinessesawayfromarterialroads,nodiningandnoretail
Nobusinesseson3rdAveatall

Page 1194
ZĐǀĚϯͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϭ

Theneighborhoodsurroundingthepropertytothewestandtothenorth.Note:awayfrom
arterialroads.

Oksane’spropertyandMonica’shousetothenorth

Page 1195
AdamandPaula’slookingwestfromthedevelopment.Adaminparticularisveryconcerned
withtheproposedheightandtheinvasionofprivacyintohisyard.

Page 1196
LookingwestonthesouthsideofHazelwood.KimandKaren’shouses.

Page 1197
TeresaandMonica’shousedirectlyacrossthestreettothenorthofthedevelopment.

Page 1198
Monica’shousewithTeresa’snextdoortothenorthoftheproperty.

Page 1199

Page 1200

Page 1201
ZĐǀĚϯͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϭ

Trafficandparkingconcerns.

WehaveheardfromJasonMorristhatthisdevelopmentwillbethesametrafficasa34,000sq
ftofficecomplexthathada108parkingspaces.Thisproposedbuildingisgoingclosetothe
curbon115,000sqftblockandwillbe4stories.At218unitswith46studios,116one
bedroomsand56twobedroomthatgivesus274bedswithonly303parkingspots.Thatis1.1
parkingspotsperbed.Thatleaves29spacesforotherhalvesofcouplesandguests.Thisisnot
enoughparking.

Thisneighborhoodiscutofftothesouthbythecanal,haslimitedaccesstothenorthandeast
bythelightrailandcontendswithsuicidelanestothewest.3rdAveisabikepathandatraffic
increasewillreducesafety.Aparkingincreasewillreducevisibility.

108parkingspacesvs303parkingspaces….34,387Sqfeetof2storybuildingvs
115,133sqfootlotsizewhichwillbemostly4storybuilding

Theparkinggaragewithitssingleentranceandexitisgoingtobetowardtheeastofthe
propertytoencouragecarstoheadtowardCentralAve.Centralisrightturnonlyheading
south.

Page 1202
CentralAveisrightturnonlyfromCoolidgeSt
SouthboundOnly

Page 1203
Comingbackintotheneighborhood

Page 1204
ZĐǀĚϯͬϮϰͬϮϬϮϭ

Wehavenotseenanappropriatedrainageplanforthesurroundingareaorthedevelopment’s
impactondrainage.ThefollowingphotosweretakenbyKarenMcCaslandafteroneofour
monsoonsattheproperty.Thisareaisafloodplain.Theprojectwillbebuiltonthisarea.

Page 1205

Page 1206
Itookthisphotooftheproperty.

Page 1207
0DS O

Page 1208

0DULFRSD&RXQW\* ,2YDULRXV0DULFRSD&RXQW\$V VHVVRU V 2IILFH
$0
Page 1209
Page 1210
Page 1211
Page 1212
Page 1213
Page 1214
Page 1215
Page 1216
Page 1217
Page 1218
Page 1219
Page 1220
Page 1221
Page 1222
Page 1223
Page 1224
Page 1225
Dillon Hall
324 West Minnezona Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85013
March 29, 2021

Phoenix City Council
c/o
Racelle Escolar, Planner III
PDD, Planning Division
(602) 534-2864

Re: Analysis of WU Code as it related to the Council’s consideration of
Z-56-20-4

Dear Councilperson Pastor,

This letter is submitted to clarify and expound upon the analysis
previously submitted by Ron Szmatowicz, the appellant in Case Z-56-20-4, and to
provide additional authorities that are relevant to Trinsic Residential Group’s
(“Trinsic’s”) application to rezone approximately 3 acres at the southeast corner
of N. 3rd Ave. and W. Coolidge St. (“subject site”) from multifamily R-3 and R-5 to
Walkable Urban Code (“WU Code”) Transect 5:5. The application must be
denied because (1) The subject property is not located within the area
circumscribed by City’s current Transportation Overlay District (“TOD”) or
Master Plan/Walkable Urban Code (“Master Plan”) and (2) Even if the site were
located in the TOD or an area that is subject to the WU Code, the proposed
development’s scale and density are not consistent with the surrounding 1- and
2-story historic structures and setbacks of surrounding properties.

1. The City should deny Trinsic’s application under the WU
Code because the subject site was excluded from the City’s
most recent iterations of the TOD and Master Plan.

When the City constructed the light rail, it designated the area on either
side of the light rail route as the TOD, which was intended for higher density
development to promote ridership on the light rail. In 2015, Chapter 13 was
added to the City Code to create a Walkable Urban Code “to implement the
vision and policies of the [TOD] Policy Plans” for certain neighborhoods,

Page 1226
including Uptown, where the subject site is located, and to “encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations . . . .” Code
Section 1301(B). A map appended to the 2015 version of Chapter 13 showed
the TOD extending from N. 3rd Ave. to N. 3rd St. along N. Central Ave. in the
Uptown Transect District, between Indian School and Camelback Rds. The map
also included the disclaimer: “The City Clerk’s Office has the official version of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Users should contact the City Clerk’s Office for
ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.”
The Staff Report for Z-56-20-4 stated that Trinsic’s plan would serve the
goals of the TOD and WU Code. See Staff Report at 7-8, Background Items Nos.
5 and 6. Since 2015, however, the City has refined the crude map appended to
Chapter 13 to exclude certain sites, including the subject site, from the TOD. See
Exhibit 1 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1)).
Similarly, the City’s current Master Plan excludes the subject site from the Master
Plan. See Exhibits 2, 3, 4 (Master Plan, Uptown-TOD Policy Plan and Walkable
Urban Code fo the Uptown District).
Developers should not be allowed unilaterally to set the course of the
City’s development against the City’s plan to preserve certain areas for other
uses, to the detriment of well-established residential neighborhoods. Because the
subject site is not included in the current TOD or Walkable Urban Code area,
the City should deny Trinsic’s application to rezone the site to WU Code T5:5.

2. The City should deny Trinsic’s application because the
proposed development’s scale and density are not consistent
with the surrounding 1- and 2-story historic structures and
setbacks of surrounding properties.

Trinsic plans to construct a 4-story + mezzanine, 218-unit luxury
apartment complex with only a 10’ setback from N. 3rd Ave. and W. Coolidge,
which are small local streets. The WU Code provides for a “[m]inimum ten-foot
landscape setback . . . .” Section 1303(A)(2)(a).
The Staff Report for Z-56-20-4 describes the neighborhoods surrounding
the proposed development, in relevant part as follows:

Page 1227
East: Immediately east of the subject site is a
multifamily complex which is zoned R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District). . . . [T]he existing buildings do
not exceed three stories in height.

West: West of the subject site across 3rd Avenue are
residential structures of a single-story and
single-family detached character. . . .

North: North of the subject site across Coolidge
Street are various residential structures
ranging from a single-family detached
character to small apartment complex, with
neither type exceeding two stories. . . .

South (the Grand Canal): South of the subject site is
the Grand Canal . . . .

Staff Report at 6 (emphasis added). The Report notes that the subject site is
located “within one-quarter mile from two light rail stations,” not adjacent to the
light rail corridor. See id. at 8.
The WU Code’s transect districts “vary by the level and intensity of their
physical and social character, providing immersive contexts from less intense to
more intense urban development.” Section 1302(A). The T5:5 Transect district,
which designation Trinsic seeks for the parcel, as “[a] medium-high intensity
mixed-use fabric characterized by a broad mix of buildings that
integrate retail, offices, live-work and residential units adjacent to
the Light Rail Corridor, averaging 56 to 100 feet in height.” Section
1302(A)(4) (emphasis added). According to the Staff Report, the subject site is
surrounded on two sides by predominantly one-story single-family dwellings, a
small two-story apartment complex, and, to the east, a three-story apartment
complex, averaging, at most, 15 to 35 feet in height. The light rail corridor is at
least three blocks away. The subject site does not meet Code requirements for
WU Code T5:5.
Chapter 13 does recognize the T3-2 Transect District as “[l]ow-intensity
residential fabric characterized primarily by single-family homes and duplexes in
relatively large lots with deep setbacks.” Section 1302(A)(1). Although this

Page 1228
characterization may fit the neighborhood surrounding the subject site, Trinsic
has not requested this zoning classification. Moreover, as noted above, Trinsic’s
proposed Aura Uptown project has only 10’ setbacks from the local streets on
which it is located. The 3-story apartment complex on the east has at least 30’
setbacks; the setbacks for the single-family detached structures and small
apartment complexes surrounding the proposed development have at least 25’ to
40’ setbacks. Although Chapter 13 provides that “[f]rontage setbacks maybe
expanded . . . by 20 percent in order to match adjacent frontage setbacks,”
Section 1304(B)(1), that would only bring the proposed development’s setbacks
to 12’. The proposed development would stick out like a sore thumb from
adjacent properties.

Conclusion

We do not oppose development in areas that that been designated as the
TOD or Walkable Urban Code along the arterial streets on the edges of the
Pierson Place and Carnation residential neighborhoods. 1 But Trinsic application
in Z-56-20-4 must be denied because (1) The subject property is not located
within the area circumscribed by City’s current TOD or Master Plan and (2) Even
if the site were located in the TOD or an area located in an area that is subject
to the WU Code, the proposed development is not consistent with the
surrounding 1- and 2-story historic structures and setbacks of surrounding
properties.

Respectfully,

Dillon Hall

Ron Szmatowicz

See SURMHFWDWVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI1UG$YHDQG:,QGLDQ6FKRRO5G KHLJKW
QXPEHURIWRZHUV RWKHUSURMHFWV"
Page 1229
EXHIBIT
I

Page 1230
Page 1231
EXHIBIT
II

Page 1232

The Walkable Urban Code plan guides rezoning to the new WU Code. The plan identifies the rezoning locations and intensity
level Transect sub-districts that are consistent with the Vision and Master Plan.
The plan serves as policy guidance and is not regulatory. Additional outreach and research on underlying entitlements and
appropriateness of specific properties will be conducted during the rezoning process.

The Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework document identifies the Placetype for certain light-rail stops within
the District.
Like the Conceptual Master Plan, the Placetype models inform the proper scale and character of the Districts, which is then
encoded in the Regulating Plan.

0DMRU8UEDQ&HQWHU (QWHUWDLQPHQW'HVWLQDWLRQ 0LG5LVH 0LG5LVH2IÀFH +RWHO 5HJLRQDO'HVWLQDWLRQ 0HGLXP+LJK
5HWDLO'HVWLQDWLRQ $SDUWPHQW 8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW +LJK5HJLRQDO ,QWHQVLW\
0LG5LVH/LYLQJ 7RZQKRXVH UHWDLOIRRWSULQW,QFHQWLYHVTIW $FFHVVLELOLW\ 6WRULHV
2IÀFH(PSOR\PHQW 5RZKRXVH ,QFHQWLYH
6WRULHV

0LQRU8UEDQ&HQWHU %DODQFHG&RPPHUFLDO 0LG5LVH /RZ5LVH2IÀFH 6XE5HJLRQDO 0HGLXP/RZ
5HVLGHQWLDO $SDUWPHQW 8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ ,QWHQVLW\
5HWDLO'HVWLQDWLRQ 7RZQKRXVH UHWDLOIRRWSULQW,QFHQWLYHVTIW 0HGLXP5HJLRQDO 6WRULHV
(QWHUWDLQPHQW'HVWLQDWLRQ 5RZKRXVH $FFHVVLELOLW\ ,QFHQWLYH
6RPH(PSOR\PHQW /LYH:RUN 6WRULHV

+LVWRULF1HLJKERUKRRG 3ULPDULO\5HVLGHQWLDO $SDUWPHQW /RZ5LVHRIÀFH 1HLJKERUKRRG /RZ,QWHQVLW\
&HQWHU 1HLJKERUKRRGVHUYLQJUHWDLO 7RZQ5RZ+RPH 8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ 6WRULHV
/LPLWHGHPSOR\PHQW /LYH:RUN UHWDLOIRRWSULQW /HVV5HJLRQDO ,QFHQWLYH
RUXQLW $FFHVVLELOLW\ 6WRULHV
6LQJOH8QLW

0HGLXP8UEDQ&HQWHU %DODQFHG&RPPHUFLDO 0LG5LVH /RZ5LVH2IÀFH 6XE5HJLRQDO 0HGLXP
5HVLGHQWLDO $SDUWPHQW 8QGHUVTIWVLQJOHWHQDQW 'HVWLQDWLRQ ,QWHQVLW\
5HWDLO'HVWLQDWLRQ 7RZQKRXVH UHWDLOIRRWSULQW,QFHQWLYHVTIW 0HGLXP5HJLRQDO 6WRULHV
(QWHUWDLQPHQW'HVWLQDWLRQ 5RZKRXVH $FFHVVLELOLW\ ,QFHQWLYH
6RPH(PSOR\PHQW /LYH:RUN 6WRULHV

8
Page 1233
EXHIBIT
III

Page 1234
!$$

!# !# !# # !# ! !!

"#

7 7
7
!!
7 7 7
7 7
7
7
7
7
7 7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7
7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7
7 7 7
7
7
7
7
7 #
7

7
7
7

7

7
7 7
7
7
7 7 7
7 7
7
7

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Page 1235
From: DIANE L MIHALSKY
To: 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; Nick Klimek
Subject: Z-56-20-4 (scheduled for 4/7 at 2:30 p.m., item 114)
Date: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:16:08 AM

0\QDPHLV'LDQH0LKDOVN\,KDYHOLYHGDW:&DPSEHOO$YHDFURVVWKHFDQDO
IURP7ULQVLF¶VSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWVLQFH7KLVLVWKHILUVWWLPH,KDYHHYHU
IRUPDOO\RSSRVHGDSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW

,RSSRVH7ULQVLF¶VUHTXHVWIRU:DONDEOH8UEDQ ³:8´ &RGH7]RQLQJEHFDXVHWKH
SURSRVHG¶KLJKSURMHFW VWRULHVDPH]]DQLQH ZLWK¶VHWEDFNVLVWRRWDOODQG
KDVLQVXIILFLHQWVHWEDFNVWRILWLQZLWKWKHPRVWO\VLQJOHVWRU\KRPHVZLWKODUJHOXVK
LUULJDWHGORWVRQWZRVLGHVRIWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWXQGHUWKH&LW\¶VRZQ:8
&RGH7KHGHYHORSPHQWZLOOOLQH7ULQVLF¶VSRFNHWVZKLOHXQGHUPLQLQJWKHORQJWHUP
HIIRUWVDQGLQYHVWPHQWRIKRPHRZQHUVDGMDFHQWWRDQGQHDUWKHSURSHUW\7KH:8
&RGHUHFRJQL]HVWKHYDOXHWKDWHVWDEOLVKHGYLEUDQWVPDOOVFDOHQHLJKERUKRRGVEULQJ
WRWKH&LW\7ULQVLFZLOOVHOOLWVSURSHUW\DQGPRYHRQZKLOHWKRVHRIXVZKRDUHPRVW
LQYHVWHGLQWKHQHLJKERUKRRGZLOOEHVWXFNZLWKWKHGHWULWXVRIWKH&LW\¶V]RQLQJ
PLVWDNH3RWHQWLDOUHVLGHQWVDUHQRWORRNLQJWRSXUFKDVHRUPRYHLQWRSURSHUWLHV
DFURVVWKHVWUHHWIURPVXFKDQLPSRVLQJDQGJODULQJO\LQDSSURSULDWHVWUXFWXUH

%HFDXVHWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWGRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH:8&RGH,GRQRW
XQGHUVWDQGZK\VWDIIDSSURYHG7ULQVLF¶VDSSOLFDWLRQ2Q-DQXDU\WKH
$OKDPEUD9LOODJH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHH ³93&´ DOVRDSSURYHG7ULQVLF¶VUHTXHVWIRU
UH]RQLQJLQDYRWH2Q0DUFK,ILOHGDQHWKLFVFRPSODLQWDJDLQVW
&KDUOH\-RQHVDPHPEHURIWKH$OKDPEUD93&EHFDXVHKHYRWHGWRJUDQW7ULQVLF¶V
DSSOLFDWLRQHYHQWKRXJKKHRZQHGDQGZDVDWWHPSWLQJWRVHOOIRUDVXEVWDQWLDOSURILW
WKUHHVPDOOFRPPHUFLDOSURSHUWLHVXSWKHVWUHHW7KHVHSURSHUWLHV¶YDOXHKDVEHHQ
LQFUHDVHGE\WKH$OKDPEUD93&¶VDQG3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VSUHOLPLQDU\JUDQWRI
7ULQVLF¶VUH]RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQ$VRIWKLVGDWHP\HWKLFVFRPSODLQWLVVWLOOSHQGLQJ,
KDYHEHHQWROGWKDWWKH&LW\&RXQFLOZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHHWKLFVFRPSODLQWDZHHNDIWHULW
GHWHUPLQHVWKHPHULWVRI7ULQVLF¶VDSSOLFDWLRQ

,DPFRQIRXQGHGE\WKH&LW\¶VVFKHGXOLQJRIFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHHWKLFVFRPSODLQW
DIWHUWKHUH]RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQ&KDUOH\-RQHV¶FRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWWDLQWVWKHHQWLUH
SURFHHGLQJ,IWKH&LW\&RXQFLOGHWHUPLQHVWRJUDQW7ULQVLF¶VUH]RQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQ
GHVSLWH7ULQVLF¶VIDLOXUHWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKH:8&RGHDQG&KDUOH\-RQHV¶LQYROYHPHQW
LQWKH&LW\¶VDGMXGLFDWLRQRI7ULQVLF¶VDSSOLFDWLRQWKH&RXQFLOZLOOSHUIRUPDJUDYH
GLVVHUYLFHWRWKHKRPHRZQHUVZKRKDYHGRQHWKHLUEHVWWRPDNH8SWRZQDGHVLUDEOH
SODFHWROLYH:HVXSSRUWWKH&LW\¶VGHVLUHWREULQJQHZUHVLGHQWVZLWKLQD
PLQXWHGULYHRIWKHOLJKWUDLO%XWWKHUHDUHPRUHDSSURSULDWHZD\VWRLQFUHDVHKRXVLQJ
DORQJWKHOLJKWUDLOWKDWFRPSOLHVZLWKWKH:8&RGHUHVSHFWVFXUUHQWUHVLGHQWVDQG
UHIOHFWVWKHDUHD¶VKLVWRULFVWDWXV1RWRQO\KDYHORFDOKRPHRZQHUVDFFHSWHGPDQ\
RWKHUODUJHUGHYHORSPHQWVLQWKHDUHDEXWLIWKH&LW\DOORZHGWKHPWREXLOGDFFHVVRU\
PRWKHULQODZVXLWHVRUJXHVWKRXVHVRQWKHLUSURSHUWLHVRZQHUVZKRDUHFRPPLWWHG
WRWKHDUHDZRXOGEXLOGPDQ\PRUHUHQWDOXQLWVWKDQWKHXQLWVWKDW7ULQVLF
SURSRVHVWREXLOG

7KDQN\RXIRUFRQVLGHULQJWKLVHPDLO
Page 1236
Page 1237
Attachment D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
May 6, 2021

ITEM NO: 15
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-56-20-4 (Aura Uptown PUD)
Location: Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street
From: R-3 and R-5
To: PUD
Acreage: 3.29
Proposal: Planned Unit Development for multifamily residential
Applicant: T. Gosselink, Trinsic Residential Group
Owner: Donor Network of Arizona
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: Did not hear request for PUD.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a
modified stipulation and additional stipulations.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-56-20-5, per Addendum A of the Staff
Report.

Commissioner Johnson made a substitute motion to approve Z-56-20-5, per Addendum A of the
Staff Report with additional stipulations to include that 20 percent open space (including the
canalscape) be required; that half the existing trees along the perimeter of the site must be
salvaged, and if unsalvageable then replaced with a minimum four-inch caliper tree or two, two-
inch caliper trees; and a modification of the maximum height on the north and west property
lines to 48 feet.

Commissioner Busching asked for a friendly amendment to increase the landscape setback
along the south property line.

Commissioner Johnson did not accept the amendment and responded that the increase in open
space will result in additional landscaping.

Commissioner Busching agreed.

Ms. Racelle Escolar asked for clarification on the motion.

Commissioner Johnson clarified that his motion is to approve Z-56-20 per Addendum A of the
Staff Report and added stipulations to require that the developer increase the open space,

Page 1238
which includes the canalscape to 20 percent, with 75 percent being public open space, that at
least half of the existing trees shall be salvaged along the perimeter of the property and if
unsalvageable to replant a minimum four-inch caliper tree or two, two-inch caliper trees, and
that the maximum building height be 48 feet on the north and west property lines.

Ms. Escolar responded that the additional open space stipulation would be an amendment to
the PUD Development Standards to change it from 10 percent to essentially 15 percent for
publicly accessible open space and 5 percent general open space (including the canalscape).
She verified that the additional stipulation for salvaging trees would be for the existing trees on
the north and west property lines and stated that the provision can be added to the landscape
section of the PUD. She asked if the height limitation of 48 feet was only for the units along the
north and west or for a specific segment of the portions of the buildings.

Commissioner Johnson stated that the buildings on the south and east can go up to 56 feet and
the buildings on the north and west can go up to 48 feet.

Ms. Escolar verified that the maximum height requirements in the PUD Development Standards,
can be modified to limit the building height of the units along the north and west portions of the
building to 48 feet in height.

Commissioner Busching seconded the substitute motion.

Commissioner Gorraiz stated that he was in opposition to the substitute motion due to the
significant increase in open space and number of changes.

Commissioner Gaynor explained that this is a recommendation and City Council can accept or
deny the recommendation and feels comfortable with the motion.

Vice-Chairperson Howard stated the site is an infill site and open space is difficult to come by
without using units and economically can be difficult.

Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-56-20-5, per Addendum
A of the Staff Report with additional stipulations to update the PUD Narrative to require 15
percent publicly accessible open space and 5 percent general open space (including the
canalscape), and requiring that half of the trees along the north and west perimeter be
salvaged, and if unsalvageable to be replaced with a four-inch caliper tree or two, two-inch
caliper trees; and a modified stipulation to limit the building height of the units along the north
and west portions of the building to 48 feet in height, and the remaining portions of the building
can be 56 feet.

Maker: Johnson
Second: Busching
Vote: 6-3 (Gorraiz, Howard, Perez)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Residential 15+ Dwelling Units Per Acre and the TOD Strategic Policy
Framework Minor Urban Center Place Type designation.

Page 1239
2. The development advances the vision and recommendations contained in the
Uptown Transit Oriented Development Plan and will support pedestrian
oriented development near the light rail and multiple urban bikeways.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options for the significant number of
residents in the Uptown TOD District.

Stipulations:

1. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.

AN UPDATED DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE FOR THE AURA UPTOWN
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 APRIL 29, 2021, 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 8, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE, BUILDING HEIGHT:
MODIFY BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARD TO READ AS FOLLOWS: A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 48 FEET FOR ALL BUILDINGS EXCEPT FOR
THE PARKING GARAGE WHICH SHALL BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF 56 FEET.”

NORTH STREET FRONTAGE/WEST STREET
FRONTAGE: 48 FEET
(UNITS ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST)

EAST FRONTAGE/SOUTH FRONTAGE: 56 FEET

C. PAGE 8, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE, MINIMUM OPEN
SPACE: MODIFY MINIMUM OPEN SPACE STANDARD TO READ
AS FOLLOWS:

15% PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE
5% GENERAL OPEN SPACE
(INCLUDING CANALSCAPE)

CD. PAGE 9, LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE,
CANALSCAPE; MODIFY THE FIRST BULLET POINT TO READ AS

Page 1240
FOLLOWS: A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE LANDSCAPED
GREENSPACE AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE
ARIZONA GRAND CANAL TRAIL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY. AT MINIMUM, THE GREEN SPACE AREA WILL
MEASURE 4,800 SQUARE FEET, 15 FEET IN DEPTH FOR A
DISTANCE OF 260 FEET, 7 FEET IN DEPTH FOR A DISTANCE OF
70 FEET, AND SHALL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE
LANDSCAPE PLAN IN EXHIBIT 7. A MINIMUM OF 3 PEDESTRIAN
AMENITIES, WHICH COULD INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO,
BENCHES AND SHADE CANOPIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN
THE LANDSCAPE AREA.

E. PAGE 9, LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE,
STREETSCAPE (COOLIDGE STREET AND 3RD AVENUE
FRONTAGES); ADD A BULLET POINT TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
HALF OF THE TREES ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST
PERIMETER SHALL BE SALVAGED, AND IF UNSALVAGEABLE
THEY MUST BE REPLACED WITH A MINIMUM 4-INCH CALIPER
TREE OR TWO 2-INCH CALIPER TREES.

2. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.

3. Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The provisions of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

5. No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible pedestrian
connections from the amenity areas located south of the building mass to the
shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 1241
8. The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge of the
site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and / or the Grand
Canal Trail. The station shall include but not limited to: standard repair
tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair
stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while adjusting the
bike.

b. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

c. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at
a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces near
entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section
1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

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

10.3. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated 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 not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the
Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR
prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

11.4. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

Page 1242
12.5. 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.

13.6. 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.

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

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

Page 1243
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:
MAY 19, 2021
APPLICATION NO/ Z-56-20-4 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southeast corner of opposition x applicant
3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street
Phoenix, AZ 85013 PC 5/6/2021 308 West Coolidge Street
Phoenix, AZ 85013
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 5/19/2021 Ron Szematowicz
HEARING 602-748-5607
pjharveytrack12@yahoo.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

We do not agree with the stipulations of the PUD from the Planning Commission. We want
further negotiations under the PUD.

RECEIVED BY: Kim Steadman RECEIVED ON: 5/7/2021

Alan Stephenson Danielle Jordan
Joshua Bednarek Ra’Desha Williams
Tricia Gomes Nick Klimek
Racelle Escolar Samantha Keating
Stephanie Vasquez Paul M. Li
David Urbinato Applicant
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo

Page 1244
Page 1245
Attachment F
Racelle Escolar

From: Olga Petkova
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:47 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: In opposition/z-54-20-4

Dear members of the planning commission,

As of this morning at 11am May 6th, members of the opposition still have not seen the new site plans. We have asked
for a continuance and we are surprised it has not been granted as of yet seeing how we are expected to take a stance at
tonight’s meeting. The PUD was remanded from City Council skipping normal steps (including Alhambra) which would
have allowed us to have ample time to review the new site plans and documents. We have not asked for a single
continuance up to this point.

We are hoping the PUD can work as it has the potential to benefit everyone including the city’s vision of the Grand
Canal‐scape. As the PUD stands, it does not work for the neighborhood. It is still very close to the WU T5:5 in density,
vehicles, units, height of the parking garage, and lack of appropriate parking spaces.

Trinsic has gained 45 units from the R3/R5. They have gone from 218 to 210 with 165 being the maximum are R5 would
allow. That is not a compromise. They have gained a 56 foot parking structure but they have REDUCED the number of
parking spots since the City Council Meeting from 303 to 292. At 266 beds (210 units), that leaves 26 parking spots for
couples and guests. That is unacceptable as this development is deep within our neighborhood. We agreed to 20 foot
setbacks with the understanding we were gaining 8 to 10 feet in setbacks (north and west sides) from the previous
rendering but this does not look to be the case based on a graphic that was sent to us a day ago. We need to see those
site plans.

If you have not received ample letters of opposition, it is because we were trying to work with the PUD but at this point
Trinsic is content with what they have and will not further reduce their density. The Dwelling Unit Density maximum for
an R5 with bonuses is 52.20. Currently Trinsic is at a dwelling urban density of 63.63. In order for the Dwelling Urban
Density to be at the maximum R5 with bonuses, Trinsic would have to bring their unit count down to 173.

210 units / 3.3 gross acres = 63.63 dwelling unit density
174 units / 3.3 gross acres = 52.72 dwelling urban density

We are open to working with this PUD as we do believe it could benefit all parties involved, but as of right now it hurts
the neighborhood and we are forced to look back at the R3/R5. If we could get further concessions on unit counts/
parking spots in the PUD we could come back to the table. Without seeing a site plan, you are allowing us to go into this
blind.

Please give us our continuance,

Olga Petkova

Sent from my iPhone

Page11246
Racelle Escolar

From: Ivo Petkov
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:50 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: In opposition / z-56-20-4

Dear members of the planning commission,

As of this morning at 11am May 6th, members of the opposition still have not seen the new site plans. We have asked for
a continuance and we are surprised it has not been granted as of yet seeing how we are expected to take a stance at
tonight’s meeting. The PUD was remanded from City Council skipping normal steps (including Alhambra) which would
have allowed us to have ample time to review the new site plans and documents. We have not asked for a single
continuance up to this point.

We are hoping the PUD can work as it has the potential to benefit everyone including the city’s vision of the Grand Canal-
scape. As the PUD stands, it does not work for the neighborhood. It is still very close to the WU T5:5 in density, vehicles,
units, height of the parking garage, and lack of appropriate parking spaces.

Trinsic has gained 45 units from the R3/R5. They have gone from 218 to 210 with 165 being the maximum are R5 would
allow. That is not a compromise. They have gained a 56 foot parking structure but they have REDUCED the number of
parking spots since the City Council Meeting from 303 to 292. At 266 beds (210 units), that leaves 26 parking spots for
couples and guests. That is unacceptable as this development is deep within our neighborhood. We agreed to 20 foot
setbacks with the understanding we were gaining 8 to 10 feet in setbacks (north and west sides) from the previous
rendering but this does not look to be the case based on a graphic that was sent to us a day ago. We need to see those
site plans.

If you have not received ample letters of opposition, it is because we were trying to work with the PUD but at this point
Trinsic is content with what they have and will not further reduce their density. The Dwelling Unit Density maximum for an
R5 with bonuses is 52.20. Currently Trinsic is at a dwelling urban density of 63.63. In order for the Dwelling Urban
Density to be at the maximum R5 with bonuses, Trinsic would have to bring their unit count down to 173.

210 units / 3.3 gross acres = 63.63 dwelling unit density
174 units / 3.3 gross acres = 52.72 dwelling urban density

We are open to working with this PUD as we do believe it could benefit all parties involved, but as of right now it hurts the
neighborhood and we are forced to look back at the R3/R5. If we could get further concessions on unit counts/ parking
spots in the PUD we could come back to the table. Without seeing a site plan, you are allowing us to go into this blind.

Please give us our continuance,

Ivo Petkov

Sent from my iPhone

Page11247
Racelle Escolar

From: nancygmcmillan@q.com
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:25 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: RE: 3rd Av & Coolidge project

Sorry need to state need a continuance until we can see site plans and discuss with our neighborhood

From: nancygmcmillan@q.com
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:20 PM
To: 'pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov'
Subject: 3rd Av & Coolidge project

Team,
I hope all is well? I am writing regarding the project development on 3rd Av & Coolidge. We were unaware that if
we opposed or approved that we were to email you all.

My name is Nancy G. McMillan and I live at 151 W Mariposa St, Phoenix, AZ 85013. While I appreciate the PUD
recommendation from Laura we have some concerns.

I am in opposition for the following reasons:
 Have not seen plan or site plans after the original was declined
o Things that were recommended we have no way to verify
o For example we got some pictures of the new proposal, but there are no setbacks
 TRAFFIC
o No traffic study done and this is a major concern
 Parking
o While everyone says permit parking is going to be done this is the responsibility of the
neighborhood not the developer and council
o They have supposedly decreased parking which is unacceptable especially if a taller unit
o Need to make sure they have plenty of visitor parking
 Setbacks
o They are not shown in the pictures we have received
o Setbacks should be 33’ wide and grass over the 16’6” grassed over
 THIS IS NOT AN ARTERIAL ROAD
o These size and types of apartments are appropriate for arterial roads not internal to a
neighborhood
o This should not be any higher than other apartments in the neighborhood

I think this is enough for now.
Nancy,

To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented
download of this pictu re from the Internet.

Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]

Page11248
Racelle Escolar

From: Tania Bachelot
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:34 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; PDD Planning Commission

Dear members of the planning commission,

As of this morning at 11am May 6th, members of the opposition still have not seen the new site plans. We have asked for
a continuance and we are surprised it has not been granted as of yet seeing how we are expected to take a stance at
tonight’s meeting. The PUD was remanded from City Council skipping normal steps (including Alhambra) which would
have allowed us to have ample time to review the new site plans and documents. We have not asked for a single
continuance up to this point.

We are hoping the PUD can work as it has the potential to benefit everyone including the city’s vision of the Grand Canal-
scape. As the PUD stands, it does not work for the neighborhood. It is still very close to the WU T5:5 in density, vehicles,
units, height of the parking garage, and lack of appropriate parking spaces.

Trinsic has gained 45 units from the R3/R5. They have gone from 218 to 210 with 165 being the maximum are R5 would
allow. That is not a compromise. They have gained a 56 foot parking structure but they have REDUCED the number of
parking spots since the City Council Meeting from 303 to 292. At 266 beds (210 units), that leaves 26 parking spots for
couples and guests. That is unacceptable as this development is deep within our neighborhood. We agreed to 20 foot
setbacks with the understanding we were gaining 8 to 10 feet in setbacks (north and west sides) from the previous
rendering but this does not look to be the case based on a graphic that was sent to us a day ago. We need to see those
site plans.

If you have not received ample letters of opposition, it is because we were trying to work with the PUD but at this point
Trinsic is content with what they have and will not further reduce their density. The Dwelling Unit Density maximum for an
R5 with bonuses is 52.20. Currently Trinsic is at a dwelling urban density of 63.63. In order for the Dwelling Urban
Density to be at the maximum R5 with bonuses, Trinsic would have to bring their unit count down to 173.

210 units / 3.3 gross acres = 63.63 dwelling unit density
174 units / 3.3 gross acres = 52.72 dwelling urban density

We are open to working with this PUD as we do believe it could benefit all parties involved, but as of right now it hurts the
neighborhood and we are forced to look back at the R3/R5. If we could get further concessions on unit counts/ parking
spots in the PUD we could come back to the table. Without seeing a site plan, you are allowing us to go into this blind.

Please give us our continuance,

Kind regards,

Tania Petkova Bachelot (Sevigne LLC)
506 W Coolidge street, 85013 Phoenix

Page11249
Racelle Escolar

From: Adam Ghiz
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:57 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z56-20-4 (3rd and Coolidge)

I’m writing to voice my opposition to the modified zoning request for z-56-20 3rd ave and Coolidge

This request was remanded down from city council to be modified into a PUD to try and work with the neighborhood to
find a compromise.

It was to address four things, density, traffic, parking and setbacks. So far only one of these has been barely touched.
The 20 foot setback is now being interpreted to be less than 20 feet from the curb to building, that aren’t materially
pushing the building back 20 feet from the curb. The intent of which was to aid in privacy of the neighboring single family
homes. The units were reduced by 8 which is only a 4% decrease, again not a substantial change from the original plan.
Also, apparently the parking has been reduced as well bringing the available parking percentage to nearly the same as
the original design. All of this while the garage is still allowed to be 56 feet tall. I ask you, if they have reduced the parking
available, why is the garage still higher than the building? Also, if parking concerns were an issue with the original design,
why reduce the number of available spots even more?

The other issue with this is that these plans have not been revealed to the public yet and this meeting is today. How can
input be given, if the changes have not been made public? We are losing normal steps in the PUD process here and by
not giving access to the changes, we are further being infringed upon.

I feel that the neighborhood is asking for reasonable items and there is room to come to an agreement. I also feel that the
spirit of the PUD is not being respected nor is it being used the way it was intended

I feel that this leads one to the conclusion that either this request must be extended to a future meeting where these
issues can be address in the proper manner, or this must be denied.

Adam Ghiz
302 W Hazelwood St
Phoenix, AZ 85013

Page11250
Page 1251
Page 1252

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2021-06-02 complete

1. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on March 18,

Item text

Supporting documents

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

Item text

Supporting documents

3. ¶ Summary

Item text

Supporting documents

4. ¶ Liquor License - The Mexicano

Item text

Supporting documents

5. ¶ Liquor License - Smashers Eats

Item text

Supporting documents

6. ¶ Liquor License - Ainsworth Phoenix

Item text

Supporting documents

7. ¶ Liquor License - Bacanora

Item text

Supporting documents

29. ¶ Public Hearing on the 2021-26 Capital Improvement Program

Item text

Supporting documents

30. ¶ Adoption of the 2021-26 Capital Improvement Program (Resolution 21928)

Item text

Supporting documents

31. ¶ Public Hearing on Adoption of the Tentative 2021-22 Annual Budget Ordinances

Item text

Supporting documents

32. ¶ Adoption of the Tentative 2021-22 Annual Budget (Ordinance S-47591)

Item text

Supporting documents

33. ¶ Adoption of the Tentative 2021-22 Capital Funds Budget (Ordinance S-47652)

Item text

Supporting documents

34. ¶ Adoption of the Tentative 2021-22 Reappropriated Funds Budget (Ordinance S-

Item text

Supporting documents

35. ¶ Amendments to Rules of Council Proceedings (Ordinance G-6860)

Item text

Supporting documents

36. ¶ Proposed Ismail Annexation - Authorization to File

Item text

Supporting documents

37. ¶ Proposed Cave Creek Road and Dynamite Boulevard Annexation - Authorization

Item text

Supporting documents

38. ¶ Computer Hardware and Support Services, State of Arizona Cooperative

Item text

Supporting documents

39. ¶ Increase Expenditure Authority for Police Department Air Support Unit

Item text

Supporting documents

40. ¶ Aircraft Parts and Services - Requirements Contract - IFB 18-137A (Ordinance S-

Item text

Supporting documents

41. ¶ Amend License with Maricopa County for Air Quality Monitors at Phoenix Fire

Item text

Supporting documents

42. ¶ Various Metals Supply - Requirements Contract - IFB 21-065 (Ordinance S-47609)

Item text

Supporting documents

43. ¶ Acceptance and Dedication of Easements for Public Utility and Sidewalk

Item text

Supporting documents

44. ¶ Acceptance of Easements for Drainage Purposes (Ordinance S-47612)

Item text

Supporting documents

45. ¶ Diversity RX Solution Camera Downlink Antenna - EXC 21-114 (Ordinance S-

Item text

Supporting documents

46. ¶ Foreign Language Interpretation and Translation Services - Requirements

Item text

Supporting documents

47. ¶ Part-Time Television Engineering Services - RFQu 19-070 (Ordinance S-47628)

Item text

Supporting documents

48. ¶ Xerox Multifunction Devices, Products, Maintenance - ADSPO13-050377(A) -